Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an NRI director, filed his return of income, which was selected for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs.24,22,000 to the assessee's income, treating payments made by the company on his behalf to six employees as commission received by him. This addition was affirmed by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The assessee appealed, contending that the inference of commission receipt based on rough jottings was incorrect.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the DRP had not judiciously considered the assessee's objections. Therefore, the matter was restored back to the file of the AO for fresh examination in accordance with the law, ensuring a reasonable opportunity of being heard is afforded to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the Dispute Resolution Panel erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 24,22,000 as commission income without judiciously considering the assessee's objections, necessitating a remand to the AO.
Sections Cited
147, 144C(13), 143(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN
Before: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav
Asst.Year 2019-2020 Kodiyil Mohammad Rijaz The Income Tax Officer Zuharas, Court Road v. Ward (International) Taliparamba Kozhikode. Kannur – 670 141. PAN : CFMPM1342G. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Arun Raj S, Advocate Respondent by : Sri.Sundarasan S, CIT-DR Date of Pronouncement : 26.05.2025 Date of Hearing : 22.05.2025. O R D E R
Per Prakash Chand Yadav, JM :
The present appeal of the assessee is arising from the final assessment order of the Assessing Officer dated 23.01.2025, passed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and relates to the assessment year 2019-2020.
The brief facts of the case as culled out of the orders of the authorities below are that the assessee is an NRI, director in one M/s.ABC Import and Export Limited, filed his return of income declaring total income of Rs.17,66,710. The same was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act and thereafter the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. During the course of assessment proceedings, it has been observed that certain . Kodiyil Mohammad Rijaz. payments were made by the company on behalf of the assessee. The AO was of the view that the assessee has received this commission from the company and hence liable to be taxed on this amount which has been paid by the company to six employees on behalf of the assessee. Accordingly, the AO made an addition of Rs.24,22,000 to the returned income of the assessee. The additions made by the AO were affirmed by the Dispute Resolution Panel, and thereafter, the AO passed the final assessment order.
Aggrieved with the order of the AO, the assessee has come up in appeal before us and argued that the department is not correct in drawing inference that commission has been ultimately received by the assessee and that too on the basis of some rough jottings.
The learned CIT-DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below.
After considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that this case requires fresh consideration at the end of the AO inasmuch as the ld.DRP has not at all dealt with the objections filed by the assessee in a judicious manner. With these observations, we restore this matter back to the file of the AO for examining afresh in accordance with law, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, before passing any order.