BALWANT RAI HUF,MANDI DABWALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SIRSA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 101/CHANDI/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 June 2025AY 2022-23Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee's submissions were not properly considered by the first appellate authority and that the assessee's primary grievance was the grant of TDS credit. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal arises from an order of the CIT(A) which upheld an adjustment made by the CPC denying TDS credit. The CIT(A) found the assessee's transactions to be in the nature of trade, not commission agency.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee's transactions were in the nature of trade or commission agency, and whether TDS credit was wrongly denied.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 37BA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH

Before: HON’BLE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)

1.

Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2022-23 arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Central (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 26-11-2024 in the matter of an intimation issued by CPC u/s 143(1) on 27-04-2023 denying TDS credit invoking Rule 37BA. The Ld. CIT(A) rendered a finding that the transactions as undertaken by the assessee was in the nature of trade and not in the nature of commission agent / broker and accordingly, the impugned adjustment was held to be in order. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.

2.

The Ld. AR, drawing attention to CBDT circular No. 452 dated 17- 03-1986 and Instruction No. 03/2013, contended that the assessee acted as a kaccha arhtiya and it was required to consider the commission income only in its financial statements. The Ld. AR also referred to Form 26AS and sample copy of Form J & I and ledger extracts to support these submissions. The Ld. Sr. DR supported the orders of lower authorities.

3.

We find that the assessee’s aforesaid submissions have not been considered in correct perspective by first appellate authority. The only grievance of the assessee is grant of TDS credit. Considering the facts of the case, we deem it fit to grant the assessee another opportunity of hearing before Ld. CIT(A) to plead and prove its case. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is restored back to Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication after considering various documents of the assessee with a direction to the assessee to substantiate its case.

4.

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 09-06-2025. (LALIET KUMAR) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 09-06-2025. आदेश की "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत /Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ"/Appellant

2.

""थ"/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु"/CIT 4. िवभागीय"ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड"फाईल/GF

More judgments on Section 37BA

All 74 judgments and leading authorities on Section 37BA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →