SANTOSH REDDYSHEETYWAR,ADILABAD vs. ITO., WARD-(1), NIRMAL

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 is in the process of ge�ng a le�er from the Agricultural Market Commi�ee to establish that he is only a commission agent however, so far the assessee could not get the same and for non- submission of the le�er from the AMC, learned CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal by passing ex-parte order. Therefore, 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 on the assessee to establish that he is only a commission agent. However, in the absence of any documentary evidence, the orders passed by the Page 2 of 5 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 conten�on of the assessee is that he is in the process of ge�ng a le�er from the Agricultural Market Commi�ee to establish that he is only a commission agent however, so far the assessee could not get the same and for non- submission of the le�er from the AMC, learned CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal by passing 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,

Page 3 of 5 a�er affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Grounds are accordingly treated as allowed for sta�s�cal purposes. 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for sta�s�cal purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on the 22nd January, 2025.