SHRI POTHINA VENKATA RAMANA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ITO, VISAKHAPATNAM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 144/VIZ/2017Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 November 2018AY 2013-20144 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for a fresh consideration. The assessee was given one more opportunity to present details, adhering to principles of natural justice.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a wholesale dealer, debited commission payments to sub-dealers totaling Rs. 27,85,515/-. The Assessing Officer disallowed this amount for non-deduction of TDS under Section 194-H.

What were the issues?

Whether disallowance for non-deduction of TDS on commission payments is justified when the assessee claims individual payments were below the threshold and was not properly notified by the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 194-H

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM

Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON’BLE & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Shri R.L.N. Somayajulu – CA
Hearing: 26/11/2018

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 144/VIZ/2017 (Asst. Year : 2013-14) Pothina Venkata Ramana, vs. ITO, Ward-5(2), D.No. 61-1-11/2, Malkapuram, Visakhapatnam. Beside Petrol Bunk, Visakhapatnam. PAN No. ABZPP 5100 C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri R.L.N. Somayajulu – CA. Department By : Mrs. Suman Malik – Sr.DR

Date of hearing : 26/11/2018. Date of pronouncement : 28/11/2018.

O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Visakhapatnam, dated 20/01/2017 for the Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that assessee is a wholesale dealer of Uninor recharge coupons. He was made certain payments to the sub-dealers, the same is debited as an expenditure towards OTS commission of Rs. 14,34,518/-, SAC base commission of Rs. 8,52,347/-, STB scheme commission of

2 ITA No.144/VIZ/2017 (Pothina Venkata Ramana)

Rs. 4,98,650/-, totalling to Rs. 27,85,515/- to his profit & loss account. The Assessing Officer has noted that the assessee has not deducted TDS on the above payments as required under section 194-H of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') and called the assessee to explain why disallowance should not be made. Before the Assessing Officer, the assessee has submitted that he has not deducted TDS while making commission payments. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has made the disallowance of Rs. 27,85,515/-. 3. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), it was submitted that none of the payments made is in excess of Rs. 10,000/- and hence, no TDS is required to be made. The assessee has not filed any information in support of such plea taken before the ld. CIT(A), therefore, ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. 4. Before us, ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee has submitted that on 21/12/2016 notice was issued by the ld. CIT(A) to appear and file the details, but such notice was not received by him, therefore, he was not able to file the relevant details to substantiate his case. 5. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative strongly supported the orders passed by the authorities below.

3 ITA No.144/VIZ/2017 (Pothina Venkata Ramana)

6.

We have heard both the sides, perused the material available on record and orders of the authorities below. 7. The addition made by the Assessing Officer is in respect of commission payments, amounting to Rs. 27,85,515/- on the ground that no TDS is deducted. On appeal, it was submitted that none of the payments made by the assessee is in excess of Rs.10,000/- and hence, no TDS is required to be made. The case of the assessee before us is that ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer on the ground that the assessee has failed to furnish the relevant details to substantiate his claim. On 21/12/2016, the ld. CIT(A) gave a final opportunity to appear and file the details and that notice was not served on him, therefore, he was not able to file the relevant details. The ld. CIT(A) has passed the exparte order. In the interest of justice and also by considering the principles of natural justice, we are of the opinion that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee. Therefore, we set aside the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the ld. CIT(A) to consider the details and pass the orders in accordance with law. We also direct the assessee to file the relevant details before the ld. CIT(A) on the date given by him without fail.

4 ITA No.144/VIZ/2017 (Pothina Venkata Ramana)

8.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order Pronounced in open Court on this 28th day of Nov., 2018.

Sd/- sd/- (D.S. SUNDER SINGH) (V. DURGA RAO) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated : 28th November, 2018. vr/- Copy to: 1. The Assessee - Pothina Venkata Ramana, D.No. 61-1-11/2, Malkapuram, Beside Petrol Bunk, Visakhapatnam. 2. The Revenue - ITO, Ward-5(2), Visakhapatnam. 3. The CIT-2, Visakhapatnam. 4. The CIT(A)-2, Visakhapatnam. 5. The D.R., Visakhapatnam. 6. Guard file. By order

(VUKKEM RAMBABU) Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Visakhapatnam.

More judgments on Section 194-H

All 26 judgments and leading authorities on Section 194-H →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →