ANNAVARAPU ENTERPRISES,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), VIJAYAWADA

Against which the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) but none appeared before the CIT(A) on behalf of the assessee and the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Basing on the written submissions made the Ld.CIT(A) decided the appeal on merits and held that the assessee required to deduct tax at source u/s 194C and 194A of the Act, thus did not find any error in the order of the AO and accordingly, upheld the order of the AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

Against which the assessee filed appeal before us. During the appeal hearing, the Ld.AR argued that the assessee is a C&F agent, the payments made by the assessee are in the nature of reimbursement of expenses, hence submitted that no TDS required to be made on account of transportation charges, as well as security charges. The assessee also reiterated the submissions made before the AO, stating that since, the assessee obtained the Form 15G, no TDS required to be made on interest payments also. The Ld.AR further submitted that in the instant case, the CIT(A) decided the appeal on the basis of written submissions and none appeared before the Ld.CIT(A). Therefore, requested to remit the matter back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) to decide the issue on merits. The Ld.AR further submitted that on identical issue, the Hon’ble ITAT in the case of M/s Annavarapu Enterprises (1989) in I.T.A.No.13/Viz/2016 dated 30.08.2017 decided the appeal in favour of the assessee. Therefore, submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Annavarapu Enterprises (1989). Hence, one more opportunity may be given to the assessee to present the case.

On the other hand, the Ld.DR vehemently opposed to remit the matter back to the file of the CIT(A).

We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. In the instant case, as per para No.4.2 of the CIT(A) order, the Ld.CIT(A) had issued only one notice, fixing the case for hearing on 13.09.2019 and decided the appeal on the basis of written submissions. The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have given one more opportunity in the interest of justice. This appeal was decided without being personally heard the assessee. Further the Ld.AR submitted that on identical issue in the case of M/s Annavarapu Enterprises (1989) (supra), this Tribunal has decided the issue in favour of the assessee. Similarly, the Ld.CIT(A) for the A.Y.2006-07 and 2008-09 in the case of M/s Annavarapu Enterprises (1989) decided the appeal in favour of the assessee and deleted the addition. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we are of the considered view that the assessee required to be given an opportunity to present it’s case before the Ld.CIT(A). Hence, we remit the matter back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to examine whether the expenditure in question i.e., reimbursement of expenses attracts TDS or not and whether the case is covered by the decision of this Tribunal as argued by the Ld.AR and decide the appeal on merits after giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

The Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax, Vijayawada

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Hyderabad 5. तवभधगीय प्रतितितर्, आयकर अिीिीय अतर्करण, तवशधखधिटणम/DR, ITAT, Visakhapatnam 6.गधर्ाफ़धईि / Guard file आदेशधिुसधर / BY ORDER //// Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Visakhapatnam