SUBRATA BID L/H OF LATE BISWANATH BID,ASANSOL vs. I.T.O.,WARD-1(2), ASANSOL

आदेश /O R D E R The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 22/11/2019 of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Asansol [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’]. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

1. First Ground : For that the CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 6,78,573/- on Commission payment account and the same may please be deleted.

2. Second Ground: For that the CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 32,429/- on alleged undisclosed commission, when the same is already a part of disclosed income, the addition made may please be deleted. A.Y 2009-10 Subrata Bid L/N of Late Shri Biswanath Bid Page 2

3. Third Ground: For that the CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 20,063/- on alleged undisclosed commission, which the same is already disclosed in the regular books and the same may please be deleted.

3. Vide Ground No.1 the assessee has agitated the confirmation of addition of Rs. 6,78,573/- on account of commission payment. The Ld. Assessing Officer ( in short, the ‘Ld. AO’) disallowed the said commission payment observing that the assessee has not deducted the TDS as the amount paid to different persons/parties was more than Rs. 1,000/-, which was in violation of provisions of section 194J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ( in short, the ‘Act’). He, therefore, made the disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act.

4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that, in fact, the assessee was in lottery business and the payment of commission was made to many parties/small businessmen, who sold lottery tickets. That, the commission payment made to various parties was less than Rs. 1,000/-. Therefore, there was no violation of provisions of section 194J of the Act. Ld. Counsel submitted that the entire evidence relating to commission payment including the names and addresses of the parties etc. was filed before the AO, which was overlooked by both the lower authorities. 5. So far as ground no.2 & 3 are concerned, the same pertains to the addition of commission income. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that the amount of addition as made vide ground nos. 2 & 3, in fact, was included the commission receipt of Rs. 52,625/- on which the assessee has paid the tax. That, Ld. AO has made double taxes. The Ld. DR though has relied on the findings of the lower authorities, but submitted that the factual aspect of the issue should have been examined by the Ld. AO. 6. I have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and gone through the record. In my view of the above raised contentions, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and matter is restored to the file of the AO to decide the issue afresh as per law with a direction that the AO will consider the contentions raised by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee to examine the evidences, if any, furnished by the A.Y 2009-10 Subrata Bid L/N of Late Shri Biswanath Bid Page 3 assessee and thereafter to decide the issue afresh. Needless to say that Ld.AO will provide adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee to present his case and thereafter, he will decide the issue(s) afresh in accordance with law.