RAMESH KUMAR KHAITAN,KOLKATA vs. THE ITO, WD-54(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex parte order without adjudicating the issue. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the issue to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
What were the facts?
The assessee declared net commission income of Rs. 2,86,846/- from total commission earned of Rs. 8,08,553/-. The Assessing Officer disallowed commission expenses of Rs. 6,30,510/-. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex parte.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated the disallowance of commission expenses, and whether the assessee was given a proper opportunity of being heard.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH: KOLKATA
Before: Shri Mahavir Singh, JM]
For the Appellant: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, FCA For the Respondent: Shri Tanuj Niyogi, JCIT, Sr. DR ORDER
This appeal by assessee is arising out of order of CIT(A)-II, Kolkata vide Appeal No. 33/CIT(A)-II/54(2)/14-15/Kol dated 01.02.2015. Assessment was framed by ITO, Ward-54(2), Kolkata u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for Assessment Year 2006-07 vide his order dated 31.12.2008.
The only issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the addition made by AO by disallowing commission expenses of Rs.6,30,510/-.
I have heard rival submissions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. I find that the assessee is an individual and his main source of income is by way of commission from LICI, Unit Trust of India etc. As per the TDS certificate the total commission earned by the assessee is at Rs.8,08,553/- and TDS deducted is at Rs.60,031/-. The assessee has declared net commission income at Rs.2,86,846/-. The assessee vide his letter dated 07.11.2008 admitted that the commission received was for an amount of Rs.9,17,356/- including TDS and out of the same commission was also paid to various persons amounting to Rs.6,30,510/-. Ld. Counsel for the assessee before us stated that the CIT(A) has not adjudicated the issue at all and he has dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex parte by stating that repeatedly assessee is a non-compliant and not willing to produce commission recipients. I have gone through the order of CIT(A) and noticed that the order of CIT(A) is ex parte order and none was present from the assessee’s side. I am of the view that one more opportunity be given to the assessee to 2 Ramesh Kr. Khaitan AY 2006-07 explain the commission payments to various parties. Accordingly, I set aside this issue to the file of CIT(A) for re-adjudicating the same after allowing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order is pronounced in the open court on __________. Sd/- (Mahavir Singh) Judicial Member Dated :10th December, 2015 Jd.(Sr.P.S.) Copy of the order forwarded to:
APPELLANT – Shri Ramesh Kumar Khaitan, 188A/23, Manicktolla Main road, Parvati residency, Flat No. 502, Kolkata-700 054 2 Respondent – ITO, Wd-54(2), Kolkata. 3. The CIT(A), Kolkata 4. CIT , Kolkata 5. DR, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vajram Infra Material Industries vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Tyre Center vs. The Superintendent Of CGSTAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026