Ita/604/2017 Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Shri H Nagaraja

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURUDATED THIS THE 29 DAY OF MAY, 2015. PRESENT THR HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL| &| THERE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADA I.T.A.No.604/2017 c/wI.T.A.No.605/2017 BETWEEN 1.The Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax, CIT(A)Central Circle, C.R.Building,Queeen’s Road, Bengaluru-560 OO1.Central Circle, C.R.Building,Queeen’s Road, Bengaluru-560 OO1. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka,Presently Central Circle-2(2),C.R.Building, Queeen’s Road,Bengaluru-560 OO1.Presently Central Circle-2(2),C.R.Building, Queeen’s Road,Bengaluru-560 OO1. ..APPELLANTS(COMMON) | (By Sri K.V.Aravind, Adv.)| AND orl H.Nagarayja,No.6 & 7,9[/!]Cross,sri Ganesh Krupa,New Bank Colony,Konankunte, Bengaluru-560 062. .RESPONDENT(COMMON) | (By Smt.Vani H., Adv.) These appeals filed under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961, praying that this Hon’ble High Court be pleased to allow the appeal and set aside the orders passed by the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, in ITA No.613/Bang/2014|dated 17.3.201/7 and confirm the order of the AppellateCommissionerconfirmingtheorderpassedby|theAsst.Comm1ssionerot Income|Tax,CentralCircle-2(2),Bengaluru, and etc. These appeals having been heard and reserved for)judgment on 26.4.2018, coming on for pronouncement, this|day,B.S.PATIL, J.,delivered the following: JUDGMENT 1.These appeals are filed under Section 260A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘tthe Act’) challenging theorders dated 17.03.2017 passed by the Income Tax)Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, in ITA No.613/Bang/2014and ITA No.614/Bang/2014, thereby allowing the appealsfiled by the assessee and setting aside the order dated|28.03.2013 passed by the Commissioner for Income Tax,|Karnataka (Central), Bengaluru, under Section 263 of the|Act. The Commissioner had disallowed the expenses.claimed by the assessee under the heads, ‘labour charges,,‘expenses of commission’ and ‘work in progress’, with a|direction to the Assessing Officer to enhance the total|income in terms of the findings recorded by him. The| Assessing Officer had been further directed by the|Commissioner to initiate penalty proceedings under|section 271(1)(c) of the Act. ? For better appreciation of the questions involved, it is"necessary to briefly advert to the facts of the case. 3.Assessee is a partnership firm run in the name andstyle M/s.SLV Housing Development Corporation. The)partnership firm consists of the assessee — Mr. H.Nagarayja,his wife Smt. Bhagya Nagaraj and his ftather Mr.Hanumappa as partners. Their business is to purchaseagricultural lands, convert them for non-agricultural|purpose viz., for formation of a residential layout and)thereafter sell them. On 06.01.2009, a search was|conducted in the premises of the assessee. Notice underSection 153A of the Act was issued for the assessment.year 2008-09 and 2009-10. The assessee filed return of|income for the assessment year 2008-09 declaring the)total income at Rs.8,82,13,948/- and for the assessment)year 2009-10 at Rs.3,98,90,396/-. By assessment order| dated 28.12.2010, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.2,338,16,700/- in respect of assessment year 2008-09and as regards assessment year 2009-10, an addition of|Rs.4,29,/72,383/- was made by him. 4TheASSECSSEEpreferredTWO|appeals.CO the|Commissioner of Income Tax. Both the appeals were.considered together. After examining the grounds raised|challengingtheadditionsmade,theCommissionercontirmedthe|additionsCO theextent|OT only|Rs.12,50,000/- for the assessment year 2008-09 and_allowed the appeal in respect of the balance. As regards|the assessment year 2009-10, addition of Rs.2 Crores wasconfirmed and rest ot the amount in a sum ot)Rs.1,92,72,383/- was ordered to be deleted. This order.was passed on 15.09.2011.) dated 28.12.2010, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.2,338,16,700/- in respect of assessment year 2008-09and as regards assessment year 2009-10, an addition of|Rs.4,29,/72,383/- was made by him. 4TheASSECSSEEpreferredTWO|appeals.CO the|Commissioner of Income Tax. Both the appeals were.considered together. After examining the grounds raised|challengingtheadditionsmade,theCommissionercontirmedthe|additionsCO theextent|OT only|Rs.12,50,000/- for the assessment year 2008-09 and_allowed the appeal in respect of the balance. As regards|the assessment year 2009-10, addition of Rs.2 Crores wasconfirmed and rest ot the amount in a sum ot)Rs.1,92,72,383/- was ordered to be deleted. This order.was passed on 15.09.2011.) 5.By exercising his powers of revision under Section263 of the Act, the Revisional Commissioner proceeded to|hold that the properties purchased by the assessee at)Kaggalipura and the subsequent sale made in favour of) Brigade Enterprises did not tally in respect of both the|assessment|orders,andtherefore,directed#"5consideration ot the entire materials. The PRevisionalCommissionerfurtherfoundthat.thedevelopmentexpenses consisting of labour charges, work in progress,|had to be added tor the assessment year 2008-09.|similarly, in respect of payment towards commission, the|Revisional Commissioner found that the cheque paymentsand TDS made for claiming expenditure had to be verified.Thus, he ordered for making addition in respect of both|the assessment years vide his order dated 20.03.2013. 6.Agegrieved by the said order passed in the revisions,the assessee preferred appeals to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru. Both the appeals were clubbed and|heard together. By a common order dated 17.03.2017, theTribunal has set aside the order passed by the Revisional|Commissioner, thereby allowing the appeals of the|assessee. It is this common order passed by the Tribunal|is assailed by the Revenue by filing these two appeals in| respect of the two assessment years by raising the|following substantial question of law. “whether,ON]thefactsand|circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is|right in law in holding that the Commissioner|of Income Tax is not justified in exercisingpower under Section 263 of the Act and.deleting the entire additions even when the.ingredients of Section 263 of the Act are.satisfied in case of assessee and CIT hadbrought on record that assessing authority's|order was erroneous and prejudicial to interestof Revenue and as such the CIT rightlydirected the assessing authority to make.additions considering the materials on record)whichWeETENotconsideredat.time|otassessmentr| T several contentions have been urged on merits.Indeed,Counsel{Ortherespondenthasseriouslycontended that the issue involved in these appeals has.been fully covered by the judgment of this Court in the|case ofDCIT Vs VARMA INDUSTRIAL LTD. —- (2001) 250 ITR 472(KAR)andorderdated17.11.2015)passed1nNITANo.699/2009 in the case ofSRI SALIL PUNOOSE VS [TO2?in as|Indeed,Counsel{Ortherespondenthasseriouslycontended that the issue involved in these appeals has.been fully covered by the judgment of this Court in the|case ofDCIT Vs VARMA INDUSTRIAL LTD. —- (2001) 250 ITR 472(KAR)andorderdated17.11.2015)passed1nNITANo.699/2009 in the case ofSRI SALIL PUNOOSE VS [TO2?in as| much as, as laid down by this Court, the Revisional|Commissioner could not have exercised jurisdiction under|section 263 of the Act to revise the order disallowing the|development expenses, labour charges, commission paid|and work in progress, as the said items had been|considered both by the Assessing Officer as well as the|Appellate Commissioner for both the assessment years andthe assessment orders had merged with the appellate|orders. In fact, based on the aforesaid judgments of this|Court and some other authorities cited at the bar,|respondent-assessee has filed an application seeking|dismissal of the appeals as the matter was fully covered bythe pronouncement of this Court. It is in this background,we have heard the matter at length. much as, as laid down by this Court, the Revisional|Commissioner could not have exercised jurisdiction under|section 263 of the Act to revise the order disallowing the|development expenses, labour charges, commission paid|and work in progress, as the said items had been|considered both by the Assessing Officer as well as the|Appellate Commissioner for both the assessment years andthe assessment orders had merged with the appellate|orders. In fact, based on the aforesaid judgments of this|Court and some other authorities cited at the bar,|respondent-assessee has filed an application seeking|dismissal of the appeals as the matter was fully covered bythe pronouncement of this Court. It is in this background,we have heard the matter at length. 8.Mr. Aravind, learned Counsel appearing for theRevenue has urged the following points: (1) In so tar as development expenses 1.e., labour.charges and work in progress, the same was _ noconsidered by the Assessing Officer as part of the| 8S developmentCXPCIHISCGConsequently,theAppellateCommissioner did not consider the said two items. He,|therefore, contends that there was no bar for the|Revisional Commissioner to entertain the revision petition|having regard to the provision contained under Section|263(1)(c) of the Act; (2) In so tar as expenses on purchase of land and.profit from sale of property to Brigade Enterprises, as|regards lands situated at Kaggalipura for the assessment|years in question, the same did not tally, and therefore,|the Revisional Commissioner was justified in exercising|revisional jurisdiction; (3) In respect of the expenses claimed for payment ofcommission to agents for purchase and sale of lands,|Revenue contends that as rightly held by the Revisional|Authority, the address furnished, details of payments|made by way of cheques, TDS deduction of agents were notsufficient to identify the sellers and purchasers to|establish the actual service rendered. Thus,|theRevenuehas|contended|that.Commissioner was right and justified in _ exercisinrevisional jurisdiction in holding that the expenses|incurred under different categories deserved to _ bdisallowed. Q Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee has contended that as regards point no.(1)|pertaining to development expenses, both the Assessing|Officer as well as the Appellate Commissioner did consider|the entire matter and for the assessment year 2008-09,|disallowed a sum of Rs.oO lakhs and as regards the|assessment year 2009-10, disallowed Rs.2 Crores, and|therefore, the assessment order passed merged with the|appellate order; hence, in view of the judgment of the HighCourt in the case ofDCIT Vs VARMA INDUSTRIAL LTD. —- (2001) 250 ITR 472 (KAR)Jthe Revisional Commissioner could not.have exercised jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act torevise the said items. In so far as the second contention|urged by the Revenue pertaining to expenses on purchase 10 of land and profit from sale of property to Brigade|Enterprises, the respondent has contended that there wasno variation at all. It is further urged that the Revisional|Commissioner could not have conducted an inquiry to takeanother view. According to them, such approach is not|permissible in law as held by this Court in the case ofCITVS M/S. IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD.2?in ITA No.771/2009disposed of on 28.11.2014. 250 ITR 472 (KAR)Jthe Revisional Commissioner could not.have exercised jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act torevise the said items. In so far as the second contention|urged by the Revenue pertaining to expenses on purchase 10 of land and profit from sale of property to Brigade|Enterprises, the respondent has contended that there wasno variation at all. It is further urged that the Revisional|Commissioner could not have conducted an inquiry to takeanother view. According to them, such approach is not|permissible in law as held by this Court in the case ofCITVS M/S. IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD.2?in ITA No.771/2009disposed of on 28.11.2014. 10.As regards the third point urged by the Revenue inrespect of expenses claimed for payment of commission to agents for purchase and sale of lands, the assessee|contends that addresses of agents, details of cheque|payments, TDS deductions were placed before the|Assessing Officer for scrutiny and based on the said|details, the Assessing Officer was satisfied and had|dropped further proceedings, and therefore, the Revisional|Commissioner was not right and justified in insisting for|profiting details for service as the same was notpermissible in law. Reliance is placed on the judgment ofthe Apex Court in the case ofCIT VS GREENWORLD|respect of expenses claimed for payment of commission to agents for purchase and sale of lands, the assessee|contends that addresses of agents, details of cheque|payments, TDS deductions were placed before the|Assessing Officer for scrutiny and based on the said|details, the Assessing Officer was satisfied and had|dropped further proceedings, and therefore, the Revisional|Commissioner was not right and justified in insisting for|profiting details for service as the same was notpermissible in law. Reliance is placed on the judgment ofthe Apex Court in the case ofCIT VS GREENWORLD| CORPORATION —- (2009) 314 ITR 81 (SCJCIT VS M/S. IGATEGLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD.2?in ITA No.771/2009 disposed of on28.11.2014, andCIT VS SAP LABS PVT. LTD.in ITANo.842/2008 disposed of on 25.08.2014. 11.We have heard the learned Counsel for both partiesat length. 12)Regarding first point urged by the Revenue:- It isapparent from the facts involved in the case that assesseepurchased 63 acres 20 guntas of agricultural property at)Kaggalipura, Bengaluru, under registered sale deeds. The)said lands were got converted to non-agricultural use; the|lands were developed into residential sites and thereafter|sold to M/s.Brigade Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., during the)assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10. The assessee|claimed expenses in a sum of Rs.20,87,92,471/- fordeveloping the layout at Kaggalipura, Bengaluru under)three different heads viz., development expenses, labour|charges and work in progress. 13.The Assessing Officer scrutinized the return ofincome filed by the assessee and directed the assessee to furnish the details. In reply, assessee furnished names andaddresses of parties to whom the amount had been paid.along with PAN numbers, bills and vouchers. Considering|the details furnished in support of the development|expenses for the assessment year 2008-09, the Assessing|Officer concluded as under which is' evident tromparagraph 6.95 of the order passed by the Assessing Olificer“The assessee has offered an amount of Rs.50 lakhs for|theassessmentYCarA2Q0O8-O1n respect|oT thedevelopmentCXPCNISCsclaimed|by|himfor.this|assessmentyearandhasottered|a©#amount.otRs.2,00,00,000/- on this account for the assessmentyear 2009-10. The additional income admitted by the|assessee in respect of unsubstantiated developmentexpenses have been accepted after examining the details|filed by the assessee and the details available on records.The amount of Rs.oO lakhs and _ Rs.2,00,00,000/admitted by the assessee for the assessment year 2008-O9 and VYVOO9I-10 have been treated as assesseeundisclosed income for the relevant assessment years|and brought to tax accordingly.” 13 13 14,In respect of the assessment year 2009-10, theAssessing Officer has proceeded to consider the addition|regarding development expenses by a separate order whichhas been produced along with ITA No.609/2017. At|paragraph 7.9 of the said order, the Assessing Officer hasconcluded as under: “7.5. The assessee has offered an amount of Rs.50 lakhs.for the assessment year 2008-09 and Rs.2,00,00,000/-|for the assessment year 2009-10 in respect of the|development expenses incurred by him stating that he isnot in a position to produce the relevant vouchers for theexpenses incurred. The additional income admitted by|the assessee in respect of unsubstantiated development|expenses have been accepted after examining the details|filed by the assessee and the details available on records.The amounts of Rs.sO lakhs and _ Rs.2,00,00,000/admitted by the assessee for the assessment years 2008-O9 and VYVOO9I-10 have been treated as assesseeundisclosed income for the relevant assessment years|and brought to tax accordingly. This amount of Rs.2)crore of undisclosed income is in addition to the amount|of Rs.1,92,72,383/- (as discussed in para 6 above)treated as assessee’s undisclosed profit received from thetransactions with M/s Brigade Enterprises for the)assessmentyC€arunderconsideration(Add.Rs.2,00,00,000/-).” 15)In the two appeals preferred by the assesseechallenging the orders passed by the Assessing Officer for|both the assessment years before the Commissioner for|Income Tax, the assessee urged that there was non-consideration of addresses of parties, PAN numbers, bills.and vouchers in support of development expenses. The|Appellate Commissioner in his order, under the head|development expenses and unexplained investment has|proceeded to consider the controversy. He has upheld the|conclusion of the Assessing Officer that the claim of|development expenses of Rs.20,87,92,471/- had to be.accepted with an addition of Rs.osO lakhs. The observationsmade in paragraph 3.2.3 are usefully extracted hereunder:“The appellant had claimed development expenses|amounting to Rs.20,87,92,471/- and the A.O. asked him|to furnish the details and evidence for the developmentalexpenses. The appellant furnished the names andaddresses of the parties and their PAN but no bills andvouchers were produced..... In view of the same, and inview of the appellant’s own admission which is quoted by the A.O. in para 6 & 6.1 wherein they had offered| Rs.50,00,000/- over and above the income declared in the return of income, this addition is confirmed.” 16.In so far as the head ‘unexplained investment’, the Appellate Commissioner has held as under in paragraph|3.3.6.) “..... It 1s fact that the appellant has offered a sum oRs.90,00,000/- out of the developmental expenses.claimed of Rs.20,87,92,471/-. The A.O. has categorically|stated that no bills and vouchers were produced......view of inability of the appellant to furnish the details ofactualexpenditure,theyhave.otteredaSUITOT Rs.50,00,000/- as income since they were not able to|substantiatedtheirCXDPCIISCTOthe.extentOT|Rs.20,87,92,4/71/- In view of inflation of expenses and inview of the assessment proceedings which is over and|above the returned income the benefit of this amount.shall be given towards investments made during the}year’. 17,In respect of assessment year 2009-10 also, theAppellate Commissioner considered the question regarding|development expenses and has proceeded to confirm the.addition made observing as under in paragraph 4.3.3.. “4.3.3. The appellant had claimed development expenses|amounting to Rs.20,87,92,471/- and the A.O. asked him| 17,In respect of assessment year 2009-10 also, theAppellate Commissioner considered the question regarding|development expenses and has proceeded to confirm the.addition made observing as under in paragraph 4.3.3.. “4.3.3. The appellant had claimed development expenses|amounting to Rs.20,87,92,471/- and the A.O. asked him| to furnish the details and evidences for the developmentalexpenses. The appellant furnished the names and_/address of the parties and their PAN but no bills and|vouchers were produced. It was agreed at the time ofassessment proceedings that he was not in position to produceallthe|relevantvouchers|eCvVethoughexpenditure has been incurred for the development of theland. Accordingly, he agreed to offer Rs.2,00,00,000/- |and the A.O. has added the same. At the time ot!appellant hearing, the appellant’s arguments for relief on this issue were not strong and the appellant had only|stated that this amount of inflated expenses, if confirmed,shall be set off against the other addition being|unexplained cash added by the A.O. In view off against|the other addition being unexplained cash added by the|A.O. In view of the same, and in view of the appellant’s|own admission which is quoted by the A.O. in para 7.0 to7.O Wherein they had offered Rs.2,00,00,000/- over and|above the income declared in the return of income, this|addition is confirmed. However, the setting off of this|amount against the unexplained cash is. separatelyconsidered.” 18.The question now is, whether the Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals) exercising jurisdiction under Section|263 of the Act, could re-consider the claim of development|expenses which had been considered by the Assessing| Officer and concluded by the Appellate Commissioner after|re-consideration. The Revisional Authority holds that|labour charges, work in _ progress, etc., should _disallowed. In our view, when the development expenses as.considered by the Assessing Officer were the subjectmatter of appeal and the Commissioner of Income Tax|(Appeals) on the judicial side has found that for both the|assessment years, the expenses incurred had to be|accepted by disallowing the claim of Rs.oO lakhs for the|assessment year 2008-09 and Rs.2 Crores for the|assessment year 2009-10, question of Commissioner of|IncomeTax|(Administration)exercisingrevisional|jurisdiction under Section 263 to once again examine the|very same issue so as to disallow the labour charges and|work in progress does not arise, as the order of|assessment made by the Assessing Officer got merged with|the order of the Appellate Commissioner. The RevisionalAuthority cannot, by acting under Section 263 of the Act)interfere and upset the order passed by the Appellate|Commissioner. If the Revenue was aggrieved by the order| of the Appellate Commissioner, the only remedy was to filean appeal to the Tribunal or to re-open the assessments.Counsel for the respondent is right and justified in placing|reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case ofDCITVs VARMA INDUSTRIAL LTD. - (2001) 250 ITR 472 (KAR)andorder dated 17.11.2015 passed in ITA No.699/2009 in the|case ofSRI SALIL PUNOQOSE VS ITThe law laid down in the)aforesaid two judgments applies to the facts of the present|case because the Appellate Commissioner has consideredthe matter while concurring with the order passed by the)Assessing Officer, and therefore, the order of the Assessing|Officer stood merged with the order of the Appellate|Commissioner. In such circumstances, the same question|cannot be re-opened by the Revisional Authority exercising|power under Section 263 of the Act. 19,As regards the second point urged by the Revenue,regarding expenses of purchase of land and profit from|sale of properties to M/s. Brigade Enterprises, it is the|case of the assessee that during the assessment years|2005-06 to 2009-10, he had purchased 63 acres 20 guntas 19,As regards the second point urged by the Revenue,regarding expenses of purchase of land and profit from|sale of properties to M/s. Brigade Enterprises, it is the|case of the assessee that during the assessment years|2005-06 to 2009-10, he had purchased 63 acres 20 guntas of land at Kaggalipura village. The said properties were|transferred to M/s. Brigade Enterprises under registered|sale deeds; consideration for purchase of these properties|was invested to an extent of 50% by the assessee and the|balance 50% was invested by M/s. Canara Housing|Development Corporation. The Assessing Officer has)accepted the payments made for purchase of lands from|agriculturists and the sale of lands to M/s. Brigade)Enterprises as having been duly accounted for during the|various assessment years. When the Assessing Officer|scrutinized the returns for the assessment years 2008-09|and 2009-10, he considered the purchase of lands from|villagers and thereaiter sale of the same to M/s. Brigade|Enterprises. He has dealt with the same in paragraphs 9.2|to 5.6 of the assessment order and has proceeded to arriveat a conclusion that for assessment year 2008-09, there|was unexplained income of Rs.1,29,606,/00/- and for theassessment year 2009-1-0, there was unexplained income|in a sum of Rs.1,92,72,383/-. He has thus proceeded to) treat these to items as undisclosed profit for the respectiveassessment years. 20,The assessee challenged this order by filing appealbeforethe|AppellateCommissioner. TheAppellateAuthority considered both the appeals and in his order|dated 28.03.2013, has held after examining the legality|and correctness of the order passed by the Assessing|Officer that addition made by the Assessing Officer|regarding unexplained income was not justified in view ofthe evidence furnished by the assessee. Hence, the|Appellate Commissioner ordered for deletion of the|additions made by the Assessing Officer, aS a result the|conclusions regarding purchase price paid for acquiring|the lands and the sale proceeds received by selling the|lands stood concluded as per the order of the Appellate|Commissioner. The order passed by the Assessing Officer|sot merged with that of the Appellate Commissioner for|both the assessment years. Therefore, there was no scope|for the Revisional Commissioner to exercise jurisdiction|under Section 263 to proceed to re-examine the purchase. made by the assessee in respect of the lands in question.The Revisional Commissioner had no justification to add|cost price in a sum of Rs.2,71,13,6098/- stating that itpertained to sales made for the subsequent year. He also|erred in directing the Assessing Officer to re-examine the|purchase price of the lands.| D1|As rightly contended by the Counsel for therespondent, the conclusion reached by the Commissioner|while exercising revisional jurisdiction tantamounts to|directly interfering with the conclusions reached by the|Appellate Commissioner. Such power of the _ revisionaauthority cannot be conceded to enable him to interiere|with the orders passed by the Appellate Commissioner in view of the doctrine of merger. Hence, it has to be held thatthe Revisional Commissioner acted without jurisdiction in passing the said order. DQ?As regards commission expenses:- Similar is thefactual matrix involved in respect of commission expensesclaimed by the assessee for the two assessment years.| D1|As rightly contended by the Counsel for therespondent, the conclusion reached by the Commissioner|while exercising revisional jurisdiction tantamounts to|directly interfering with the conclusions reached by the|Appellate Commissioner. Such power of the _ revisionaauthority cannot be conceded to enable him to interiere|with the orders passed by the Appellate Commissioner in view of the doctrine of merger. Hence, it has to be held thatthe Revisional Commissioner acted without jurisdiction in passing the said order. DQ?As regards commission expenses:- Similar is thefactual matrix involved in respect of commission expensesclaimed by the assessee for the two assessment years.| Admittedly,|duringtherelevantassessment|YCals,assessee had purchased 63 acres 20 guntas of land in|Kaggalipura from various agriculturists under registered|sale deeds. The said properties were converted for non-agricultural purpose; residential layout was_ formed,thereafter these properties were transferred to M/Ss.Brigade Enterprises by executing registered sale deeds. Forthe purpose of purchasing the lands and as also etiecting|sales of the sites, multiple agents were involved. The|Assessing Officer examined the details regarding paymentsmade through cheques to commission agents for purchase|of properties and thereatter for effecting sale in favour ofM/s. Brigade Enterprises. The Assessing Officer, therefore,did not consider it just and proper to make any additionsin respect of the two assessment years as there was|evidence to establish the factum of payment of commissionto agents. Indeed, their names and addresses and PAN|numbers had been produced. The Commissioner exercisedhis jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act to hold that|mere furnishing names, addresses, PAN numbers, cheque| payment details to the agents for purchase of agricultural|lands at Kaggalipura, and thereaiter registration of sale|deeds aiter converting and developing into residential sites|would not be sufficient evidence for laying claim of|expenses under Section 37 of the Act. He has proceeded tohold that assessee had to establish the actual service|rendered by each of these agents in the purchase and sale of lands, and therefore, disallowed the claim of the|assessee in respect of expenses towards commission. 23|The assessee challenged the order passed by theRevisional Authority before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has|found that the assessee had furnished details of the.names, addresses, cheque payment details and TDS)deduction towards commission. The assessee challenged|the order passed by the Revisional Authority before the)Tribunal. The Tribunal has tound that the assessee had|furnished the details of the names, addresses, cheque|payments and TDS deduction towards commission; the|Assessing Officer took into consideration the fact that in|real estate transactions normally norms of accepting| commission for purchase and sale of land had been clearly|recognized, therefore, the Assessing Officer did not commit|any error in accepting the claim of commission expenses.| D4.We have given our careful consideration to thefindings given by the Appellate Tribunal. In our view, the|Tribunal has rightly held that the Commissioner was in|error in proceeding to take the view that actual service|rendered by each of the individuals had to be established|for accepting commission in the sale and purchase of land. A careful perusal of the findings recorded in paragraph 11|of the order passed by the Tribunal makes it clear that as)regards commission expenses, the Assessing Officer after|examining the assessee, had questioned him to state)details regarding evidence he had supporting the claim of|commission and development expenses and also as to)whether TDS had been deducted and remitted by him of|the said payments. In response to the same, the assessee|had stated that evidence would be placed before theAssessing Officer. AS a sequel of the same, the assessee|submitted full details regarding payment of commission.| Aiter considering the material, the Assessing Officer chosenot to make any addition on the item pertaining to|commission. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly found that|theitems|oT CXPCYISCcOT]whichtheRevisional Commissioner proposed to revise the assessment having|been thoroughly supported by the Assessing Officer, it wasnot open tor the revisional authority to interfere with the|same only because another view was possible. The|Tribunal has supported its conclusion by referring to the|judgment of the Bombay High Court in this regard in the|case ofCIT vs NIRAV MODI - (2017) 390 ITR 292 (BOM) O45As we do not find any error in the approach adoptedby the Tribunal, we find that there is no scope for|interference in the matter. Therefore, the substantial|question of law raised by the Revenue is answered in the|negative. We, therefore, hold that in the facts and|circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in|holding that the Commissioner of Income Tax was not|justified in exercising the revisional powers under Section|263 of the Act to upset the order passed by the Assessing| Officer which had stood merged with the order passed by|the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 26,For the reasons stated above, the appeals filed by theRevenue are dismissed. In the tacts and circumstances otthe case, parties shall bear their respective costs.| KK| Sd/-|JUDGE Sd/-|JUDGE