AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2020-21 arises against the C IT(A)/NFAC, De lhi’ s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1078383900(1) dated 11.07.2025, in proceed ings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in shor t “the Act”).
Heard both the p arties at length. Case file perused.
Delay of 44 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in the larger interest of justice in lig ht of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).
Next comes the sole substantive issue between the parties. It emerg es from a perusal of the case records that all what both the learned lower authoritie s’ have done is to disallow the assessee’s total expenses of Rs.1,36,69,071/-@10%; coming to Rs.13,66,907/- quoting lack of the nece ssary detailed supportive evidence, in the course of assessment as upheld in the lower appellate proceedings.
This is what leaves the assessee aggrieved.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’ s respective submissions. Both the parties could hardly dispute the clinching facts emerging from the case records that neither the assessee; a commissio n agent in vegetable market, has been able to plead and prove the impugned expenditure of Rs.1,36,69 ,071/- to the entire satisfaction o f both the learned lower authorities nor the department has been able to justify the imp ugned disallowance @10% which apparently appears on a b it higher side. Be that as it may, it is thus deemed appropriate that a lump sum disallowance of Rs.1,00,000/- keeping in mind the assessee’s kacha arhtiya business, would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be tre ated as a precedent. Necessary computat ion shall fo llow as per law.
This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed.