SH. SANDEP KUMAR BANSAL, BATHINDA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -2 (5), AMRITSAR

ITA 5/ASR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0461 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-07-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 31-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SATBIR SINGH
• Keywords: TDS
• Section: 133(6)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 5/ASR/2019 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Sandeep Kumar Bansal Prop. A.N. Enterprises, Bhagat Singh Market, Budhlada. PAN-BDAPB 3423Q (Appellant) Vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward 2(5), Abohar (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by: Sh. Satbir Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 12.05.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 05.07.2022 ORDER Per: Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bhatinda {in brevity ITA No. 5/Asr/2019 Sandeep Kumar Bansal v. ITO 2 CIT(A)} bearing appeal no. 209-IT/16-17, date of order 12.10.2018, passed u/s. 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in brevity of the Act) for the Assessment year 2014-15. The impugned order was originated from the order of ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(5), Abohar (in brevity A.O) passed u/s.143(3) of the Act on dated 16.12.2016 for the assessment year 2014-15. 2. The brief fact of the case is that assessee is proprietor of M/s. A.N. Enterprises, Budhlada and distributor of Group of Reliance Company. The assessee was selected for scrutiny. The ld. A.O. ask the appellant to produce the debit note which was amount to Rs.46,33,938/-. The notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act was issued to M/s. Reliance Web Store Ltd., Mumbai. Party confirmed the debit note expense Rs.40,66,246/- which made difference with assessee’s submission amount to Rs. 5,67,692/-. As per assessee the TDS was deducted by the party & reason of difference is TDS. The difference amounts of Rs.5,67,692/- were added back in the total income of the assessee by the Ld AO. ITA No. 5/Asr/2019 Sandeep Kumar Bansal v. ITO 3 Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A). After rejection of the grounds of appeal by the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before us. 3. During the appeal hearing the assessee submitted brief note and submitted a chart where the difference of Rs.5,39,768/- was explained. Only the difference amount is TDS which was deducted from the assessee’s commission by the party. The difference in credit note Rs.5.67.692/- and TDS was deducted Rs 5,39,768/- which was not reconciled by the assessee. The assessee took the plea that the debit note is nothing, but the difference of TDS deducted by the party. 4. The ld. Sr. Dr. relied on the order of the Revenue Authority and prayed for the confirmation of addition. 5. We heard the rival submission and relied on the documents available in the record. The assessee submitted chart in brief note which is self-explanatory. The chart is inserted as below. ITA No. 5/Asr/2019 Sandeep Kumar Bansal v. ITO 4 PARTICULARS RCPL RICL GRAND TOTAL FRC COMMISSION 3308447.00 - 3308447.00 RETAILER COMMISSION 854947.00 355763.00 1210710.00 DISTRIBUTOR COMMISSION 829571.41 48683.00 878254.00 TOTAL COMMISSION TDS 4992965.00 499322.00 404446.00 40446.00 5397411.00 539768.00 It is fact that there is a difference in TDS deducted and debit note. But the amount is more or less similar with the difference of debit note. The assessee pointed out that this difference amount is due to deduction of TDS. During the assessment proceedings both the accounts of assessee and party is not properly verified. 6. We heard and decided that assessee should get another opportunity to submit his documents before the CIT(A). The Revenue Authority should verify the difference amount of debit note with relevancy of TDS. Accordingly, the issue is setting aside before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee should give proper opportunity for redressal of his grievances. ITA No. 5/Asr/2019 Sandeep Kumar Bansal v. ITO 5 7. In result the appeal of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 05.07.2022 Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. M. L. Meena) (Anikesh Banerjee) Accountant Member Judicial Member Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By Order