Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “SMC-B”, HYDERABAD
Before: SHRI MANJUNATHA. G & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY
आदेश / ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M: Aggrieved by the order dated 18/09/2024 passed by the learned Addl / Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Faridabad (“Ld. CIT(A)”), in the case of Suryakanth Reddysheetywar (“the assessee”), assessee preferred this appeal for the AY 2022-23. 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is in the business of commission agency registered with Agricultural Market Commi�ee, Kubeer. Assessee filed his return of income for the AY 2022-23 admi�ng a total income of Rs. 8,18,810/-. In�ma�on U/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) was passed in the case of the assessee wherein assessee’s claim for credit of TDS to the extent of Rs. 93,580/- against assessee’s TDS claim of Rs. 5,96,517/- was denied by the CPC, Bengaluru on the ground that the income to the full extent of TDS claimed has not been declared by the assessee in his return of income. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A).
Learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee ex-parte by holding that during the course of appellate proceedings, assessee neither filed any wri�en submissions nor uploaded any response in spite of issue of no�ces on various occasions. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
Learned Authorized Representa�ve (“learned AR”) submi�ed before us that the assessee only acts as a commission agent to the sellers/agriculturists who bring their produce to the Agricultural Market Commi�ee for sale and assessee is en�tled to only a fixed percentage of commission on the goods sold. The TDS is being made under sec�on 194Q by the purchasers on the en�re value of purchases made by them from the assessee, who is only a commission agent of seller. He further submi�ed that assessee could not get a le�er from the Agricultural Market Commi�ee ie., Agency Cer�ficate to establish that he is only a commission agent during the appellate proceedings. Because of non- submission of the le�er from the AMC, learned CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal by passing ex-parte order. Apart from this, learned AR pleaded that the impugned order does not comply with the requirement of law U/s. 250(6) of the Act. However, since the assessee obtained the Agency Cer�ficate, learned AR pleaded to remit the ma�er back to the file of the learned CIT(A) for one more opportunity of being heard.
Learned Departmental Representa�ve (“learned DR”) heavily relied on the orders of the lower authori�es and submi�ed that onus is Page 2 of 5 on the assessee to establish that he is only a commission agent. He further submi�ed that the assessee is a non-filer and he did not avail the opportunity granted by the Authori�es below. However, in the absence of any documentary evidence, the orders passed by the lower authori�es are in accordance with law and need not be interfered with.
We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. The only plea of assessee is that he is a commission agent, en�tled only to a commission at a fixed percentage ranging from 1 to 1.5% of the goods sold and therefore, ques�on of admi�ng of en�re sale value as income of the assessee does not arise. The main conten�on of the assessee is that he could not obtain the Agency Cer�ficate during the appellate proceedings due to the reason that the issuance of cer�ficate was under process. Now, the assessee obtained the following documents viz., (i) le�er of confirma�on of Commission Agency Opera�ons (ii) Market License and (iii) Commission Pa�s and hence, the assessee prays for one more opportunity before the learned CIT(A), who passed the ex-parte order.
Requirement of law under sec�on 250 (6) of the Act is that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in wri�ng and shall state the points for determina�on, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision. Even in the absence of the assessee, it is always open for the learned CIT(A) to deal with the ma�er on merits instead of dismissing the same in limine. In the instant case also, the learned CIT(A) could have adverted to the points for determina�on and decided the same by assigning cogent reasons. Impugned order is conspicuous for its absence.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned orders do not comply with the requirement of Sec�on 250(6) of the Act and cannot be sustained.
With this view of the ma�er, we set aside the impugned order and restore the issue to the file of the learned CIT(A) to decide the issue afresh. We direct the assessee to co-operate with the learned CIT(A) in ge�ng the ma�er disposed of on merits, without seeking any adjournments and the learned CIT(A) to take a fresh look at the ma�er, a�er considering the documents filed by the assessee, as men�oned above and a�er affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Grounds are accordingly treated as allowed for sta�s�cal purposes.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for sta�s�cal purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on the 23rd January, 2025.