SRI MANISH AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 908/KOL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 September 2019AY 2014-152 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication due to confusion in accounting entries and reconciliation. The CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without considering the merits of the case.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a dealer of mobile recharge vouchers, received commission from Idea Cellular and Dish TV India Ltd. The CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without disposing of the case on merits. Confusion arose from accounting entries regarding commission payable to retailers.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in passing an ex-parte order without adjudicating the case on merits. Whether the accounting entries related to commission payments were correctly understood and reconciled.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy

Appearances by: Sh. S.M. Surana, Adv., appeared on behalf of the Assessee. Sh. Jayanta Khanna, JCIT, Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : September 25th, 2019 Date of pronouncing the order : September 27th, 2019 ORDER Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM :- This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata (‘CIT(A)’ for short) dated 26.03.2019 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short).

2.

The ld. CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order. He has not disposed off the case on merits.

3.

The assessee is a dealer of mobiles, Re-charge voucher etc. and had received commission of Rs. 17,30,917/- on the sales of the same. The commission was received from Idea Cellular and Dish TV India Ltd. On enquiry, both these principals have stated that the assessee is a dealer and has appointed retailers for the sale.

4.

The principal has initially credited the entire commission payable to the dealer and thereafter, the retailers, in account of the dealer and thereafter the commission payable to the retailers are reimbursed by debiting the account of the dealer and correspondingly crediting the account of the principal. In our view, there has been confusion in the understanding of the accounting entries and consequently the Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sri Manish Agarwal reconciliation of these amounts. Under these circumstances I set aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Kolkata, the 27th September, 2019.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →