MANGI LAL MOHTA,SRI BIJAYNAGAR vs. ITO WARD, SURATGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 39/JODH/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 July 2025AY 2023-24Bench: Dr. M. L. MEENA (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the document from 1997 indicated permission for trade as a "Joint" trader, and the categories for commission agent were struck out. Furthermore, the assessee's income as a commission agent could not be clearly deciphered or segregated from trading income in the ITR and other submissions. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly verified or discussed the material submitted by the appellant.

What were the facts?

The assessee-appellant, Sh. Mangi Lal Mohta, is engaged in the business of trading agricultural commodities and claims to also operate as a commission agent. The Revenue contended that the assessee is primarily a trader and not a commission agent, and that income derived from commission agency activities cannot be segregated from trading income. The appellant relied on a document from 1997 permitting trade and a prior tribunal decision.

What were the issues?

Whether the appellant is a trader or a commission agent, and if both, whether the income from commission agency can be segregated from trading income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(1),Section 194J,Section 194Q,Section 37BA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR.

Before: Dr. M. L. MEENA & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri Vedant Gupta, C.A
For Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT (Sr. DR)
Hearing: 01/07/2025
11.

As a result, in view of the above discussion, this appeal is disposed of for statistical purpose and matter is remitted to the Assessing Officer for decision afresh, by adjudicating all the relevant issues, and while providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Judicial Member having joined and presided over through virtual mode from Jaipur Benches, order needs pronouncement under Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 by placing the details on the notice board. File be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office.

More judgments on Section 194J

All 1,434 judgments and leading authorities on Section 194J →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →