SHRI PURSHOTTAM SHARMA,BIKANER vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALURU ITO, WARD-2(2), BIKANER, BANGALURU / BIKANER

PDF · subscribers
ITA 116/JODH/2023Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur19 September 2023AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) is deleted, as it is undisputed that the assessee incurs expenses in earning commission income. The Tribunal noted that similar income in other assessment years was accepted by the revenue.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an LIC agent, earned commission income. The CPC treated this income as 'commission income' without allowing deductions, and a subsequent rectification application under Section 154 was rejected. The Assessing Officer (AO) also imposed tax on the same income under business income and income from other sources.

What were the issues?

Whether the entire commission income is taxable without allowing for business expenses, and if a rectification application under Section 154 for apparent mistakes should be allowed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH “SMC”, JODHPUR

Before: Sh. Saktijit DeyDr. B. R. R. Kumar

Hearing: 18.09.2023Pronounced: 19.09.2023

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 116/Jodh/2023
SA No. 05/Jodh/2023

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH “SMC”, JODHPUR Before Sh. Saktijit Dey, Vice President Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member Asstt. Year : 2017-18 SA No. 05/Jodh/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Sh. Purushottam Sharma, Vs DCIT, C/o Jajra Drug Agency Chandak Katla, CPC, Ambedkar Circle, Bikaner, Bangaluru Rajasthan-334001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. BBCPS0295P Assessee by : Sh. Suresh Ojha, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Rajiv Mohan, JCIT-DR Date of Hearing: 18.09.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 19.09.2023 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:

The present appeal and Stay Application has been filed by the assessee against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 15.03.2023.

2.

Following grounds have been raised by the assessee:

“1. That the Order passed by the A.O as well as sustained by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi is illegal and against the law. 2. That the assessment completed is illegal and against the law. 3. That the rejection of claim u/s 154 is illegal and against the law because in the A.Y. 2018-19, in the same set of circumstances the declared income has been accepted following the 44AD as such same should has been accepted.

4. That the assessing officer imposed double tax on the one income under the head of business income as well as income from other sources, which is illegal and against the law. As such only the income part should be sustained that is amounting to Rs. 66962/-.

5. That the assessee correctly shown its income under the head of business income but the assessing officer treated it as income from other sources. The assessee filed rectification because it is mistake is apparent from the record, hence covered under the definition of mistake as per the section 154 of the Income Tax Act. 6. That the CIT should have accepted the appreciated issued that only profit can be taxed and not the entire income. Under 143(1) inspiration cannot be taken from other section as per judgment of Rajasthan High Court.” 3. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record.

4.

We find that the assessee has earned commission being LIC agent of Rs.3,59,619/-. The CPC has wrongly considered this as “commission income and allowed no further deductions. The application u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 filed by the assessee has also been rejected without according any tangible reasons. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee is in the similar business in the earlier and subsequent years which has been accepted by the revenue authorities. It cannot be said that the assessee cannot incur any expenses while doing the business of earning commission as an LIC agent and hence, the addition confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) of Rs.2,92,657/-(Rs.3,59,619 - Rs.66,962) is hereby deleted.

5.

Since, the appeal of the assessee has been allowed, the SA becomes infructuous and hence dismissed. & SA 05/Jodh/2023 3 Purushottam Sharma 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the SA of the assessee is dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 19/09/2023.

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →