AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
This captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC Delhi dated 21.10.2025 arising from the assessment order dated 30.03.2021 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), for the AY 2018-19 (‘the AY’ for brevity) pertaining to the AO concerned i.e. NFAC [WARD 16(3), DELHI] (“the AO” for brevity).
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee-company engaged in the business of Medical Tourism, had filed its return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 dated 24.10.2018. The case was picked up for scrutiny identifying the reason, Large commission and low net profits. The learned AO disallowed entire commission paid of Rs 75,36,732/- vide his order 30.03.2021 u/s 143(3) r.w. 143(3A)/143(3B). Aggrieved, assessee was in appeal before the learned CIT(A)/NFAC, who dismissed the appeal.
Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A)/NFAC, assessee is now in appeal before us with the following grounds:
1.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC erred in sustaining the assessment order without appreciating the specialized business modalities and commercial intricacies inherent to the Appellant’s industry.
2.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC erred in failing to take cognizance of the audited financial statements, which clearly and appropriately reflect the commission income earned and expenses incurred by the Appellant.
3.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO and CIT(A) NFAC erred in arbitrarily disallowing/disregarding commission payments made to various parties, despite the Appellant having provided comprehensive details and identities of the recipients.
4.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Lower Authorities erred in failing to comprehend the functional business model of "Medical Tourism" in India and the specific hospital billing mechanisms that dictate the Appellant’s revenue recognition.
5.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in making substantial disallowances of business expenses without pointing out any specific defects in the books of account or formally rejecting them under the provisions of Section 145 of the Act.
6.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC erred in violating the principles of natural justice by failing to share the Remand Report with the Appellant, thereby denying the Appellant a fair opportunity to rebut the findings therein.
7.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned order passed by the Ld. AO is arbitrary, bad in law, and contrary to the established tenets of natural justice.
8.The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, revise, or delete any ground of appeal during the pendency of this appeal.
Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently submitted that the disallowance of commission expenditure was made despite the fact that all details of the persons to whom commission was paid was furnished. The identity person, referral services done, their ITR and TDS etc. were provided to AO.
Per contra, the ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below.
We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. In the instant case, we find that the assessee has attempted to prove the entire commission expenses as being for the purposes of getting patients on the basis of referral, payment having been made through banks for which invoices are raised. Although the assessee, prima facie, appears to have discharged its onus of explaining the commission expenses, it’s contentions to prove the commission expense, hardly deserves to be accepted in entirety especially when the assessee could not give satisfactory explanation for non-existence of written agreement with the commission agents, any evidence of communication with agents/hospitals and mismatch in the ledger accounts of the agents. On the other hand, the Revenue’s endeavour to disbelieve the assessee’s contention that commission expenses were incurred, cannot be fully justified. In this factual matrix, there is some element of failure to explain some of the commission expense, cannot be ruled out. Be that as it may, it is deemed appropriate, in larger interest of justice, that a lump-sum disallowance of Rs. 5 lakh only, as commission expense, would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent, so as to cover all loopholes. The assessee’s ground on this count is partly allowed.
In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 8612/DEL/2025 is partly allowed.