PRAVIN ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMSHEDPUR V. ACIT , NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE

ITA 107/RAN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Pravin Engineering Pvt. Ltd., which appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (CIT(A)) concerning the assessment year 2018-19. The primary issue was the disallowance of a commission claim of Rs.11,36,000 paid to directors, which was initially classified under section 36(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer had disallowed this claim, leading to an appeal that was dismissed by the CIT(A) without proper consideration of the assessee's arguments and supporting tax audit certificate. The Tribunal, upon reviewing the submissions and the circumstances, decided to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a detailed re-assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 775405 (ITAT-RANCHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 11-04-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH-RANCHI VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA Before Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member and Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Accountant Member I.T.A. No.107/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Pravin Engineering Pvt. Ltd.......................…...........................……….……Appellant Plot No.6A, Phase-1, Industrial Area, Adityapur, Jharkhand - 832109. [PAN: AABCP0358E] vs. ACIT, National E-Assessment Centre, New Delhi.……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances by: None appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : September 10, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order : September 11, 2025 ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against an order dated 28.02.2024 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company and filed its return of income for the assessment year 2018-19 declaring total income of Rs.73,21,980/-. The case of the was selected for scrutiny and the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act assessing total income of the assessee at Rs.84,67,210/-. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer pointed out that the tax audit report has identified that the assessee paid its directors a sum of Rs.11,36,000/- as bonus or commission which was otherwise payable as profits or dividend and this amount was covered by section 36(1)(ii) of the Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of commission as claimed by the assessee. Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.107/Ran/2024 Pravin Engineering Pvt. Ltd. 2 3. Dissatisfied with the above order, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) wherein the assessee stated that Rs.11,36,000/- was wrongly fed in form no.3CD in serial no.20(1) as regards bonus or commission paid to an employees for serves rendered, where such sum was otherwise payable to him as profits or dividends as per section 36(1)(ii) of the Act and the said sum is not a part of profits or dividends as stated in section 36(1)(ii) of the Act. The assessee also filed certificate from the tax auditor during the appellate proceedings. However, the contention of the assessee was not considered nor remitted back the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification of facts and the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by simply upholding the order of the Assessing Officer. 4. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee is in appeal before this tribunal raising multiple grounds. However, when the matter came up for hearing, no one appeared before the Bench for arguing the case. Since, no one turned up before us, we cannot keep this appeal pending for inordinate time, therefore, with the assistance of the ld. DR, we heard this matter. 5. The ld. DR relied on the order of the authority below. 6. We, after hearing the ld. DR and perusing the materials available on record, find that the assessee fairly stated that commission to directors of Rs.11,36,000/- was wrongly fed in form no.3CD in serial no.20(1) as regards bonus or commission paid to an employees for serves rendered, such sum was otherwise payable to him as profits or dividends as per section 36(1)(ii) of the Act and the said sum is not a part of profits or dividends as stated in section 36(1)(ii) of the Act. In this regard, the assessee also filed certificate from the tax auditor during the appellate proceedings. However, the contention of the assessee was not considered by the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, considering the facts, we remand the whole Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.107/Ran/2024 Pravin Engineering Pvt. Ltd. 3 issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to re- examine the issue afresh after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and to decide the appeal on merits of the case. We direct the assessee to comply all notices during the remand proceedings. 7. In terms of the above, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Kolkata, the 11th September, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- [Ratnesh Nandan Sahay] [Sonjoy Sarma] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 11.09.2025. RS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), //True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches Printed from counselvise.com "