YAJUVENDRA ARJUNBHAI DODIYA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] dated 28/12/2024 passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2018-2019.

The assessee, in this appeal, has agitated against the action of the Ld.CIT(A) in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) of Rs.39,95,720/- being the amount of commission received by the assessee from Tirth Agro Technology Pvt.Ltd. as reflected in Form 26-AS. The AO further Yajuvendra Arjunbhai Dodiya vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2018-19 noted that the assessee in his return filed u/s.139(1) of the Act had shown the total income of Rs.23,92,060/-. He was of the view that prima facie the aforesaid commission income was not added by the assessee in the return of income. He, therefore, reopened the assessment u/s.147 of the Act. The assessee, however, for certain reasons, could not participate in the assessment proceedings. The AO, therefore, held that the income of the assessee amounting to Rs.39,95,720/- had escaped assessment. He, accordingly, added the same to the income of the assessee as income from other sources. The Ld.CIT(A), however, dismissed the appeal of the assessee confirming that the assessee neither had filed any return of income nor had deposited any advance tax.

Being aggrieved by the said order of the Ld.CIT(A), assessee has come in appeal before us.

The Ld.Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has miserably failed to properly appreciate the facts on file. He has contended that the assessee not only had filed the return of income but had also duly disclosed the said commission income as shown in Form 26-AS. He has submitted that, in this case, there was no escapement of income. He has further submitted that since there was no taxable income of the assessee, which had escaped assessment, therefore, it was not a case of deposit of any advance tax as alleged by the Ld.CIT(A).

We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and gone through the record. Since the lower authorities have failed to properly examine the factual details as well as the contention of the assessee that the Yajuvendra Arjunbhai Dodiya vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2018-19 assessee has duly taken into account the alleged commission income and that there was no escapement of income, we, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the AO for de novo assessment of this issue. Needless to say that the assessee will promptly participate in the assessment proceedings, furnish the necessary details and, thereafter, the AO to pass the assessment order on this issue after duly considering the submissions of the assessee.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.