AMIT VEDPRAKASH BANSAL,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD -4(4), NAGPUR

Date of Hearing – 03/10/2024 Date of Order – 12/12/2024

O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M.

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 06/10/2023, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2012–13.

2 Amit Vedprakash Bansal of ` 8,36,280. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued to assessee. The assessment under section 143(3) was completed by Assessing Officer on 21/03/2015, by accepting the returned income of ` 8,36,280. Thereafter, based on the RAP audit objection, the assesse received intimation for rectification under section 154 vide notice dated 06/01/2016, stating that the commission income under section 194H of the Act as per the provisions of section 26AS is ` 9,84,542, instead of ` 6,84,542, as per Profit & Loss Account of M/s. R.K. Agencies, resulting in understatement of income of ` 3,00,000, on account of commission income received form M/s. Parkson Graphics Pvt. Ltd., without offering such receipt, whereas corresponding TDS was claimed. We find that the assessee has filed all the details and the Assessing Officer, after examining such details, passed order under section 143(3) of the Act. We also find that it is not a fit case for making addition under section 154 of the Act for the reason that, whether or not the commission income of ` 3,00,000, received by the assessee is taxable, has to be decided during the original assessment proceedings under section 143(3) of the Act and not during the rectification proceedings under section 154 of the Act. Even otherwise also, we find that the assessee, during the course of rectification proceedings, by way of written submissions dated 17/01/2017, intimated the Assessing Officer that an amount of ` 3,00,000, received by eth assessee from M/s. Parkson Graphics Pvt. Ltd. is in the nature of advance on which TDS was also deducted at ` 30,000, and hence, the Revenue ought to have no grievance in this regard. Considering the above facts, we hold that the Assessing Officer was not justified in making addition of ` 3,00,000. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order passed by the 3 Amit Vedprakash Bansal learned CIT(A) allow the grounds raised by the assessee by directing to delete the addition. Thus, the assessee succeeds in this appeal.