Shri Purshottam Sharma, Bikaner V. DCIT, CPC, Bangaluru ITO, Ward-2(2), Bikaner , Bangaluru / Bikaner

ITA 116/JODH/2023

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Sh. Purushottam Sharma against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), which upheld the assessment made by the Assessing Officer (A.O). The primary contention was regarding the incorrect classification and taxation of commission income earned by the assessee as an LIC agent. The assessee argued that the income was wrongly treated under 'income from other sources' instead of 'business income', leading to double taxation. The ITAT found merit in the assessee's arguments, noting that similar income had been accepted in previous and subsequent assessment years under the same circumstances, and allowed the appeal, thereby deleting the addition made by the CIT(A).

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 122682 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-09-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 17-09-2023
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 09-04-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business income; Application of stay
• Section: 154; 44AD; 143(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH “SMC”, JODHPUR Before Sh. Saktijit Dey, Vice President Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 116/Jodh/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 SA No. 05/Jodh/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Sh. Purushottam Sharma, C/o Jajra Drug Agency Chandak Katla, Ambedkar Circle, Bikaner, Rajasthan-334001 Vs DCIT, CPC, Bangaluru (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. BBCPS0295P Assessee by : Sh. Suresh Ojha, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Rajiv Mohan, JCIT-DR Date of Hearing: 18.09.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 19.09.2023 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal and Stay Application has been filed by the assessee against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 15.03.2023. 2. Following grounds have been raised by the assessee: “1. That the Order passed by the A.O as well as sustained by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi is illegal and against the law. 2. That the assessment completed is illegal and against the law. 3. That the rejection of claim u/s 154 is illegal and against the law because in the A.Y. 2018-19, in the same set of circumstances the declared income has been accepted following the 44AD as such same should has been accepted. ITA No. 116 & SA 05/Jodh/2023 Purushottam Sharma 2 4. That the assessing officer imposed double tax on the one income under the head of business income as well as income from other sources, which is illegal and against the law. As such only the income part should be sustained that is amounting to Rs. 66962/-. 5. That the assessee correctly shown its income under the head of business income but the assessing officer treated it as income from other sources. The assessee filed rectification because it is mistake is apparent from the record, hence covered under the definition of mistake as per the section 154 of the Income Tax Act. 6. That the CIT should have accepted the appreciated issued that only profit can be taxed and not the entire income. Under 143(1) inspiration cannot be taken from other section as per judgment of Rajasthan High Court.” 3. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record. 4. We find that the assessee has earned commission being LIC agent of Rs.3,59,619/-. The CPC has wrongly considered this as “commission income and allowed no further deductions. The application u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 filed by the assessee has also been rejected without according any tangible reasons. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee is in the similar business in the earlier and subsequent years which has been accepted by the revenue authorities. It cannot be said that the assessee cannot incur any expenses while doing the business of earning commission as an LIC agent and hence, the addition confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) of Rs.2,92,657/-(Rs.3,59,619 - Rs.66,962) is hereby deleted. 5. Since, the appeal of the assessee has been allowed, the SA becomes infructuous and hence dismissed. ITA No. 116 & SA 05/Jodh/2023 Purushottam Sharma 3 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the SA of the assessee is dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 19/09/2023. Sd/- Sd/- (Saktijit Dey) (Dr. B. R. R. Kumar) Vice President Accountant Member Dated: 19/09/2023 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR