INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-28, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUCHISMITA MAJUMDER, KOLKATA

The captioned appeal filed by the Revenue, pertaining to Assessment Year 2006-07, is directed against the order passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XIV, Kolkata, dated 24.08.2013, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO), under section 143(3)/154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, ( In short,’the Act’), Dated 29.04.2008.

“1.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld.CIT (A) was right in law as well as on facts in deleting the addition of undisclosed commission income by holding that commission was disclosed in A.Y. 2005-06, though TDS was claimed in A.Y. 2006-07. 2.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld.CIT(A) was right in law as well as on facts in not considering the fact that income is assessable in the year, in which corresponding TDS is claimed. 3.That the appellant craves leave to add,alter,modify,delete or include any of the grounds of appeal”.

5.Ld. DR for the Revenue has submitted before us that the assessee had disclosed the Commission Income in A.Y. 2005-06, though the TDS was claimed by the Assessee in the A.Y. 2006-07, which is wrong. The income should be assessable in the year in which corresponding TDS was claimed. In the Instant case there is a complete mismatch therefore this issue should be remit back to the file of the AO for statistical purposes to rectify the mistake.

5.1 Ld AR for the assessee has submitted that assessee claimed the TDS in the A.Y. 2006-07 and disclosed the details by way of Annexure-B before the ld CIT (A). The Ld. AR also submitted before us that in computation of taxable income, in the ledger account of Assessment Year 2005-06, the net commission earned during the year was Rs.8,58,985/- which includes alleged amount but no TDS was claimed on the alleged amount, and assessee submitted details before the ld CIT(A) through Annexure-C. However, the ld AR could not produce before us Annexure-B and Annexure-C, to see truth of the matter. 5.2 The Ld. DR for the Revenue has submitted that assessee never filed any details before the ld.CIT(A). Annexure –B and Annexure-C had not been filed by the Assessee. There is a complete mismatch between the Commission Income earned and TDS claimed, that is TDS pertains to 4 SuchismitaMajumder A.Y. 2006-07 whereas Commission income pertains to A.Y. 2005-06. There is no any correlation between the commission income and TDS. Ld CIT (A) did not give any findings as to whether TDS pertains to Commission earned in A.Y. 2005-06. Therefore, this issue requires examination at the end of the Assessing Officer. 5.3 Having heard the rival submissions, perused the material available on record, we are of the view that there is merit in the submissions of the Departmental Representative (DR), as the propositions canvassed by the ld DR for the Revenue are supported by the facts narrated by him. As he pointed out that the assessee has submitted Annexure-B and Annexure-C before the ld CIT(A), but the ld CIT(A) did not work on them to find out the relationship between commission earned and TDS. The ld CIT(A) failed to establish the nexus between commission earned and TDS. The Commission earned pertains to A.Y. 2005-06 whereas TDS pertain to A.Y. 2006-07. How the assessee can take the benefit of TDS which pertains to different Assessment Years. Hence there is a lot of ambiguity between the Assessment order and the order passed by the ld CIT(A). Therefore, we are of the view that this issue requires a fresh examination at the end of the Assessing Officer. We direct the Assessing Officer to examine the TDS for A.Y. 2006-07 and to see whether it pertains to Commission Earned in A.Y. 2005-06 or not and to examine the other relevant documents of the assessee to ascertain the correctness of the claim. Accordingly, we remit the case back to the file of the AO to examine the issue as per the direction given (supra).