What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee's submissions regarding the difference between gross and net turnover, and the deduction of commission paid to retailers, required factual verification. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh assessment.

The Assessing Officer (AO) added Rs. 14,89,626/- to the assessee's income, considering it as undisclosed sales. This was based on a discrepancy between the GST return's gross turnover and the income tax return's reported commission and incentive income.

What were the issues?

Whether the AO correctly treated the gross turnover as income without considering the net commission income after deducting payments to retailers.

Monika Khandelwal, Baran vs ITO | ITAT Jaipur 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, “SMC” BENCH, JAIPUR

Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG

Hearing: 24.03.2026Pronounced: 21.04.2026

P a g e | 1 ITA No.1789/JPR/2025 Monika Khandelwal IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “SMC” BENCH, JAIPUR BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1789/JPR/2025 (Assessment Year:2020-21)

Monika Khandelwal Vs. ITO Ramdwara Ke Samne, Ward Prem Nagar 325205 Baran �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No:BPDPK9995P Appellant .. Respondent

Appellant by : Sh. Rohit Gupta, C.A. Respondent by : Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT (v.c.)

Date of Hearing 24.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement 21.04.2026 O R D E R The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order ofthe National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”) dated 10.10.2025 u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

The assessee in this appeal is aggrieved by the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs.14,89,626/- made by the Assessing

P a g e | 2 ITA No.1789/JPR/2025 Monika Khandelwal Officer (AO) on account of undisclosed sales/turnover by the assessee. The AO observed that in the GST return, the assessee had shown sales in the trading account of Rs.3,74,62,488/- and indirect revenue of Rs.35,37,852/- in the profit and loss account. He observed that, however, in the income tax return, the assessee had shown commission and incentive income amounting to Rs.20,48,243/- only. He, therefore, observed that the assessee has not shown the commission and incentive income of Rs.14,89,626/- in the return of income, and therefore, he added the aforesaid balance amount of Rs.14,89,626/- into the income of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition so made by the AO.

Before me, the Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that, in the GST Return, the assessee had shown gross turnover of Rs.35,37,852/-. However, in the income tax return, the assessee had shown the net turnover after deducting the incentives and commission paid by the assessee to the retailers, and the tax was accordingly offered on the net commission income of Rs.20,48,243/-. The Ld. AR has submitted that the assessee had duly shown the payment of commission and incentives to the retailers of Rs.14,89,626/- in the commission ledger, sales in the trading and profit and loss account. However, the AO failed to take note of the same and mistakenly treated the gross turnover as income of the assessee for the year under consideration. The above submissions of the Ld. AR require factual verification at the hands of the Assessing Officer; the matter is, therefore, restored to the file of the AO with a

P a g e | 3 ITA No.1789/JPR/2025 Monika Khandelwal direction to verify the aforesaid contention of the assessee and pass a fresh assessment order in this respect.

With the above observations, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced under provision of Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 21.04.2026.

Sd/- (Sanjay Garg) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated 21.04.2026 Mittali, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT By Order,

Asst. Registrar ITAT, Jaipur

MONIKA KHANDELWAL,BARAN vs. ITO WARD BARAN, BARAN

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments