Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Pravin Engineering Pvt. Ltd., filed its return for AY 2018-19. The Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 11,36,000/- claimed as bonus or commission to directors, treating it as covered by Section 36(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance without considering the assessee's submission that the amount was wrongly reported in Form 3CD and was not profits or dividends.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's explanation, supported by a tax auditor's certificate, regarding the incorrect reporting in Form 3CD and the nature of the commission. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the entire issue back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination, ensuring a reasonable opportunity of being heard is provided to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the disallowance of commission paid to directors under Section 36(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act was justified, given the assessee's claim of a reporting error in Form 3CD and the CIT(A)'s failure to consider the evidence.
Sections Cited
Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, Section 36(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BENCH-RANCHI
Before: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay
order
: September 11, 2025 ORDER
Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against an order dated 28.02.2024 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company and filed its return of income for the assessment year 2018-19 declaring total income of Rs.73,21,980/-. The case of the was selected for scrutiny and the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act assessing total income of the assessee at Rs.84,67,210/-. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer pointed out that the tax audit report has identified that the assessee paid its directors a sum of Rs.11,36,000/- as bonus or commission which was otherwise payable as profits or dividend and this amount was covered by section 36(1)(ii) of the Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of commission as claimed by the assessee.
Dissatisfied with the above order, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) wherein the assessee stated that Rs.11,36,000/- was wrongly fed in form no.3CD in serial no.20(1) as regards bonus or commission paid to an employees for serves rendered, where such sum was otherwise payable to him as profits or dividends as per section 36(1)(ii) of the Act and the said sum is not a part of profits or dividends as stated in section 36(1)(ii) of the Act. The assessee also filed certificate from the tax auditor during the appellate proceedings. However, the contention of the assessee was not considered nor remitted back the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification of facts and the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by simply upholding the order of the Assessing Officer.
Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee is in appeal before this tribunal raising multiple grounds. However, when the matter came up for hearing, no one appeared before the Bench for arguing the case. Since, no one turned up before us, we cannot keep this appeal pending for inordinate time, therefore, with the assistance of the ld. DR, we heard this matter.
The ld. DR relied on the order of the authority below.
We, after hearing the ld. DR and perusing the materials available on record, find that the assessee fairly stated that commission to directors of Rs.11,36,000/- was wrongly fed in form no.3CD in serial no.20(1) as regards bonus or commission paid to an employees for serves rendered, such sum was otherwise payable to him as profits or dividends as per section 36(1)(ii) of the Act and the said sum is not a part of profits or dividends as stated in section 36(1)(ii) of the Act. In this regard, the assessee also filed certificate from the tax auditor during the appellate proceedings. However, the contention of the assessee was not considered by the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, considering the facts, we remand the whole Pravin Engineering Pvt. Ltd. issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to re- examine the issue afresh after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and to decide the appeal on merits of the case. We direct the assessee to comply all notices during the remand proceedings.
In terms of the above, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Kolkata, the 11th September, 2025.