Parkash Chand Sachdeva, Noida V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2991/DEL/2017

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Prakash Chand Sachdeva against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXIV, New Delhi, which arose from the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2012-13. The primary contention was regarding the addition made on account of unaccounted commission receipts allegedly earned by the assessee from M/s. Laxmi Remote (India) Pvt. Ltd., which was reflected in Form 26AS. The assessee denied receiving any commission, and the financial statements of the company showed commission payments only to the tune of Rs. 11,08,708/-, which had not been paid to the assessee. The Assessing Officer's additions were challenged on the grounds of lack of proper opportunity to be heard and violation of principles of natural justice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 121636 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 9 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-03-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 01-03-2023
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 11-05-2017
• Other Referred Cases: State Bank of Travancore vs Commissioner of Income Tax (1986) 158 ITR 102 (SC), Ravindra Pratap Thareja vs Income Tax Officer War 1 (Rewa) 2015 (60) Tax man 304
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S.P. GOGIA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F” DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.2991/DEL/2017 Assessment Year 2012-13 Prakash Chand Sachdeva, 3/4, Ashok Viahar, PH-III, Pocket-B, New Delhi. Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-34(1), New Delhi TAN/PAN: AAXPS6507P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri S.P. Gogia, Adv. Respondent by: Shri R.S. Yadav, Sr.DR Date of hearing: 02 03 2023 Date of pronouncement: 10 03 2023 O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, A.M.: T he capt ione d a ppeal has bee n file d by t he assess ee a gain st the orde r o f the C ommi ss io ner of Income T ax (A ppeals)-X XX IV , N ew D elhi, da te d 28. 02.2017 ar is ing fr om t he asse ssme nt o rde r dated 28. 02. 2017 passed by the A ssessi ng Of fi ce r u/s .143( 3) of the A ct, concer ni ng A ssess ment Y ear 2012-1 3. 2. T he grou nds of appea l ra ised b y the assesse e read as unde r: “ 1 . T h at t he o r de r i s ag ai n st t h e f a c t an d l aw of th e c a s e . 2. T ha t th e a ss e se e ha s no t p r ov i d e d p r o pe r o p p o r t un i t y of b ei n g he a r d w h i c h i s b a d i n l a w a n d ag ai n s t t he p ri nc i p l es o f n a t u ral ju st i c e, m o r e o v e r n o sh o w c au s e n ot i c e h a s e ve r b ee n i s s u e d by th e A / A o r th e F i r s t ap p e l l an t A ut ho ri t y f o r fi l l i ng a pa rt i c u l a r do c u m e n t w h e r ea s o n t h e ot h e r h an d e v e r y t h i n g i s av ai l a b l e o n th e I n c o m e t a x p o r t a l a nd e v e r y A ut h o r i t y h a s an a cc e s s t o fi n d ou t t h e s a m e . I.T.As. No.2991/Del/2017 2 3. T ha t th e A / A e r r e d i n m a k in g a d di t i o n o n a / c o f C o m m i s si o n wh ic h h a s ne v e r b e e n r e c e i v e d n or a c c ru ed n ot on l y i n t h e y ea r un d e r a s s e s sm e n t e v e n t i l l da te i t h a s n e v e r b e e n re ce i v e d by t h e as s e se e a nd n ot b e e n p ai d b y t he C om p an y wh i c h i s ag a i n s t t h e ru l i n g o f St a te Ba n k o f T r a v an c o r e V S Co m m i s si on e r o f I n c o m e T ax (A p p e al ) ( 1 9 8 6 ) 1 5 8 I T 10 2 ( S C ) m o re o v e r t h e f ir s t ap p e l l at e au t ho ri t y h a s no t t a k en a ny i ni t i at i v e t o f i n d ou t t hi s fa c t s. 4. T h at t h e A /A a s w e l l a s t h e f i r s t a p p e l l a t e a ut ho ri t y h a s n ot go n e i n to t h e i s s ue an d n ot e v e n c o n si d e r t h e s u b m is si o n o f t h e as s e se e be f o r e p a s s in g t h e o rd e r t h a t wh y th e c o m m iss i o n w a s re qu ir e t o b e re v e r s ed wh e re a s th e a s s e se e h a s re pli e d t h e sa m e in hi s s u bm is s i on . 5. T h at t h e A /A e r r e d i n j u st re l y i n g o n th e 2 6 A S w he r e a s t he sa m e i s a ga i n st t h e rul i n g de c i de d by t h e Ja ba l pu r T ri bu na l i n th e Ca s e o f R a v i n d r a Pr at ap T ha re j a V s I n co m e T a x Of f i c e r Wa r 1 (R e wa ) 2 01 5 ( 6 0 ) T ax m a n 3 04 a n d t h e Fi r s t A p e l l ant A u t h or it y ha s e r r e d i n n ot c o n si de r e d th e sa m e 6. T ha t t h e A / A a s we l l a s f i r st a p p e l l a n t a u t h o r i ty f u rt h e r e r r e d in s t a t i n g t ha t t he T . D . S r et u rn c a n b re v i s e d w it hou t go n e in t o th e f ul l f a ct s an d t h e l i m it a ti o n of re v i si ng t he TD S r e t u r n th at th e a s s e s e c a n no t c l ai m r e f u n d in t h e o ri gi n a l a s w e l l a s i n t he re vi s e d r e t u r n o f T . D . S an d h e f u rt h e r i gn o r e t h sub m i s s i on o f th e a s s e se e t h at t h e no T . D . S . re t u rn c an be r e vi s ed c l ai m i n g re fu nd an d c h a n g i n g t h se c t i o n o r t h e s o u rc e of I nco m e . 7. T h at t he f i r s t a p p e ll a nt a u t ho ri t y f ur t h e r e r r ed i n i gn o ri n g t h e m ai n i s su e i nv o lv e d i n t hi s c a se a l g iv i ng h i s o p i ni o n r e g a rd i n g th e T . D . S b ec a u se a s s e s ee e ha s d e p o si t e d al l t h e due t a x e n ti t l e d fo r re f un d e v e n i f i g n o r e t h e T . D . S d e du c t e d f ro m th e Co m m i ss i o n . ” 3. When the matter w as calle d fo r hearin g, the ld. couns el for the asses see s ubmi tted tha t a n a ddi ti on o f Rs. 77, 89, 711/ - w as ma de in t he ha nds of t he assess ee on t he gro und t hat ce rtai n co mmiss i ons has b een all egedl y earn ed b y t he asses see to t he tune of R s.9 7, 12, 121/- fro m one M/s. L ax mi Remote (India) P vt. L td. and a T DS of R s. 9,71, 212/ - has be en de ducted and cred ite d i n fa vour of ass esse e as r efle cte d in A nnual In formation Re port (A IR) reported in For m 26A S ma i ntained by the D e partmen t f or this purpose. I t is on t his bas is of the TD S ent ries reflected in I.T.As. No.2991/Del/2017 3 for m 26A S, the A ssessi ng O ff ice r ma de t he impugn ed a ddit ions on account of s uppres sion of co mmiss i on rece ipts. In this re ga rd, the ld. counse l s ubmi tted that he has not re ceive d a n y commi ss ion w hats oe ve r from t he said compa ny and the f inanci al s tatement s of the c ompan y itse lf also show s c ommis si on pa ymen t of onl y Rs. 11, 08,708/- an d eve n this amount als o has not bee n paid to the assessee. It w as poi nt ed out that t he mis take is conti nuing and coul d no t be re cti fi ed be cause t he deductor / pa ye r is not i n a pos it ion to revise the T D S ret urn i n the a bse nce of a ny module avail able i n th e IT softw ar e for do in g s o. T he ld. c ounse l thus sough t f or sui table relief in the ma tte r. 4. T he ld. D R for the Re venue c onte nde d tha t t he a ct ion of the A ssessi ng O ffice r is justi fie d having reg ard to the T D S deducted in the na me of t he assessee whic h has also been enjoyed by the assessee and t hus the on us is on the assessee t o d isp ute th e content s of For m 26AS. 5. We have considere d the r ival s ub mis sio ns. T he additi ons on account of unac counted c ommiss ion rec ei pt s is under c halle nge. It is t he case of t he a ssessee that it has not r ece ived a n y commi ss ion fro m M/s. L ax mi Re mo te ( Ind ia ) Pvt. Ltd. as w rong l y re fl ected in the A IR a nd cons equentl y no inco me is accrue d or arise n in the hands of the a ssessee w hat soever. H avi ng re ga rd t o unequivocal asse rt ions made on behal f of t he asse ssee, w e dee m it e xpe dient t o res to re th e iss ue back to the f ile of the A ssessi ng O ffice r for sui ta bl e verif ica tion. It shal l be ope n to the A ssessi ng O ff ice r t o conduct s uita ble enqui r y and veri fi cations of the ave rments made by the a ssess ee fro m th e de ducto r a nd tak e the is sue to logical concl us ion. Where it is fo und t ha t no com miss ion has been pa id by the de duct or t o the assessee, t he i mp ugne d a ddi ti ons on acco unt of I.T.As. No.2991/Del/2017 4 suppresse d commi ssion woul d not be j ust i fi ed. The Assessing O fficer sha l l a lso exami ne t he ta xabili ty of TD S credit, i f ava iled, by t he ass essee a nd dete rmine th e taxabil it y of T DS rece ipts i n accorda nce wi th law . With these di re cti ons, the issue i s re mi t ted back to the file of t he Asse ssing O ffic er fo r fr esh decis ion in accorda nce w i th l a w and after giv ing com mensurate oppor tunit y t o assessee. T he ass essee shal l du ti full y ass ist the Assess ing O f fice r for det ermi nat ion of t he issue wit hout a n y de mur. With the se obs erva tio ns, the issue is res tore d to the file o f t he Assessing O fficer. 6. In the r esu lt, the appeal of t he a ssessee is allow ed f or sta tis ti ca l purpos es . Order pronounced in the open Court on 10/03/2023. Sd/- Sd/- [YOGESH KUMAR US] [PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: /03/2023 prabhat