Rohit Kumar Agarwal, Cuttack V. ITO Ward-2(3), Cuttack

ITA 75/CTK/2023

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Rohit Kumar Agarwal, engaged in wholesale trading of electronics, against the order of the CIT(A), which confirmed the addition of Rs.1,61,897/- to his income for the assessment year 2014-15. The amount was received as a 'price protection credit note' from M/s. Mobile Commerce Solution Ltd. (MCSL) and was recorded in the books after the closure of accounts for the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee argued that this amount was offered for taxation in the subsequent assessment year 2015-16. The revenue contended that the credit note pertained to the relevant assessment year 2014-15 and should be added to the income for that year. The Tribunal sided with the assessee, noting that the amount was correctly offered in the assessment year 2015-16.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 300450 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-05-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 15-05-2023
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 12-03-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEFORE Rohit Kumar Agarwal Kumar Agarwal, Music Makers, Choudhury Bazar, Cuttack PAN/GIR No. (Appellant This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A),NFAC, Delhi, 23/1049089658(1) 2. Shri Mohit Sheth, ld AR appeared for the Chandra Mohanty, ld Sr DR appeared for the revenue. 3. It was submitted by ld AR that the assessee is in the business of wholesale trading in Electronics Equipments and Appliances. I IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK ‘SMC’ BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL ITA No.75/CTK/2023 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Rohit Kumar Agarwal, C/O Sushil Kumar Agarwal, Music Makers, Choudhury Bazar, Cuttack Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Cuttack PAN/GIR No. (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Assessee by : Shri Mohit Sheth, AR Revenue by : Shri Kishore Chandra Mohanty, Date of Hearing : 16/05 Date of Pronouncement : 16/0 O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld ,NFAC, Delhi, dated 25.1.2023 in Appeal No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022 23/1049089658(1) for the assessment year 2014-15. Mohit Sheth, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri Kishore Mohanty, ld Sr DR appeared for the revenue. It was submitted by ld AR that the assessee is in the business of wholesale trading in Electronics Equipments and Appliances. I Page1 | 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, , CUTTACK JUDICIAL MEMBER Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Respondent) Mohanty, Sr DR 5/2023 /05/2023 This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- assessee and Shri Kishore It was submitted by ld AR that the assessee is in the business of wholesale trading in Electronics Equipments and Appliances. It was the Page2 | 4 submission that an amount of Rs.1,61,897/- was shown as ‘price protection credit note’ from M/s. Mobile Commerce Solution Ltd. (MCSL). It was the submission that this credit note had been received by the assessee after closure of the accounts of the assessee. Consequently, the said amount was offered for taxation during the assessment year 2015-16. Ld AR placed before me the copy of the trading and profit and loss account for the year ended on 31 st March, 2015, wherein, in the expenditure side purchase had been reduced by discount and credit notes to an extent of Rs.15,45,854/-. It was the submission that the said amount was part of the direct income in respect of which MSCL price protection of Rs.5,44,132/- had been granted and the ledger account of the said amount of Rs.5,44,132/- showed that on 23.10.2014, debit note has been received for the amount of Rs.1,61,897/- and consequently, the said amount has been offered to tax during the assessment year 2015-16. It was the submission that the Assessing Officer has also recognized that the amount has been received in the assessment year 2015-16 and the same has also been reflected at page 2 of the assessment order. It was the submission that as the amount has already been offered to tax during the assessment year 2015-16, the same is not liable to be assessed during the assessment year 2014-15. 4. In reply, ld Sr DR vehemently supported the order of the Assessing Officer as well as ld CIT(A). It was the submission that the credit note Page3 | 4 related to the relevant assessment year and the amount should have been added to the income of the assessee in the said relevant assessment year. 5. I have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the ledger account of MCSL price protection showing debit note of Rs.1,67,897/- is dated 23.10.2014. This ledger account of MCSL price protection in the books of account of the assessee is thus clearly credit note by MCSL price protection which is a debit note in the account of the assessee is of dated 23.10.2014 relatable to assessment year 2015-16. It is noticed that the assessee has rightly offered the said amount to tax during the assessment year 2015-16. This being so, this amount cannot be treated as income of the assessee for the assessment year 2014-15 and consequently, the addition as made by the AO and confirmed by the ld CIT(A) stands deleted. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 16/05/2023. Sd/- (George Mathan) JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 16/05/2023 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) Page4 | 4 Copy of the Order forwarded to : By order Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Cuttack 1. The Appellant : Rohit Kumar Agarwal, C/O Sushil Kumar Agarwal, Music Makers, Choudhury Bazar, Cuttack 2. The Respondent: Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(3), Cuttack 3. The CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr.CIT-, Cuttack 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //True Copy//