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

ITA 303/NAG/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Amit Vedprakash Bansal, an individual engaged in manufacturing and commission agency, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which had been based on a rectification notice under section 154 of the Income Tax Act. The notice was issued following an audit objection, which claimed that the assessee had understated his income by \\u20b9300000 from commission received but not reported in his income. The Tribunal examined whether the addition of this income was appropriate during the rectification process and concluded that it should have been addressed in the original assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 24255 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 15-05-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHAY Y. MARATHE
• Assessee Lawyers: AMARJEET SINGH SANDHU
• Keywords: Set aside; TDS; Audit objection
• Section: 143(3); 154

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA no.303/Nag./2024 (Assessment Year : 2012–13) Amit Vedprakash Bansal 224, Bansal Niwas, Balabhaupeth Nagpur 440 017 PAN – ACAPB9448Q ……………. Appellant v/s Income Tax Officer Ward–4(4), Nagpur ……………. Respondent Assessee by : Shri Amarjeet Singh Sandhu Revenue by : Shri Abhay Y. Marathe 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. As emanate from the records available before us and having heard both the parties, we find that, in the present case, the assessee is an individual carrying on the business of manufacturing of piles in the name of M/s. V.K. Industries / Aditya Polymers and is also a Commission Agent of Playing Cards in the name M/s. R.K. Agencies. The assessee filed return of income on 18/09/2012, declaring a gross total income of ` 9,12,951, and total oncome 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. 3. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 12/12/2024 Sd/- K.M. ROY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- V. DURGA RAO JUDICIAL MEMBER NAGPUR, DATED: 12/12/2024 Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Nagpur; and (5) Guard file. True Copy By Order Pradeep J. Chowdhury Sr. Private Secretary Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Nagpur "