SANTOSH REDDYSHEETYWAR,ADILABAD V. ITO., WARD-(1), NIRMAL

ITA 1299/HYD/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Santosh Reddysheetywar, a commission agent registered with the Agricultural Market Committee, Kubeer, who appealed against the order of the CIT(A) which dismissed his appeal ex-parte. The primary issue was the denial of TDS credit claimed by the assessee, which was rejected by the CPC, Bengaluru, on the grounds that the income to the full extent of TDS claimed had not been declared in the return of income. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to non-submission of a letter from the Agricultural Market Committee, which the assessee was in the process of obtaining to prove his status as a commission agent. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have decided the matter on its merits despite the absence of the assessee and without dismissing the appeal in limine.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 36103 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SM-B
• Assessment Year: 2022-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARAVINDAKSHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: Y.V. BHANU NARAYAN RAO
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; TDS
• Section: 250; 143(1)

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ मɅ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “SMC-B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI MANJUNATHA. G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अपी.सं / ITA No. 1299/Hyd/2024 (Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year: 2022-23) Santosh Reddysheetywar, Adilabad. [PAN : AFKPR1479K] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-(1), Nirmal. अपीलाथȸ / Appellant Ĥ× यथȸ / Respondent Ǔनधा[ǐरती ɮवारा/Assessee by: Shri Y.V. Bhanu Narayan Rao, AR राजè व ɮवारा/Revenue by: Shri Aravindakshan, Sr. AR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख/Date of hearing: 15/01/2025 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख/Pronouncement on: 22/01/2025 आदेश / ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M: Aggrieved by the order dated 23/10/2024 passed by the learned Addl / Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Mumbai (“Ld. CIT(A)”), in the case of Santosh Reddysheetywar (“the assessee”), assessee preferred this appeal. 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is in the business of commission agency registered with Agricultural Market CommiƩee, Kubeer. Assessee filed his return of income for the AY 2022-23 admiƫng ITA No. 1299/Hyd/2024 Santosh Reddysheetywar Page 2 of 5 a total income of Rs. 13,85,640/-. InƟmaƟon U/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) was passed in the case of the assessee wherein assessee’s claim of Rs. 1,45,746/- for credit of TDS was denied by the CPC, Bengaluru on the ground that the income to the full extent of TDS claimed has not been declared by the assessee in his return of income. CPC has also charged interest of Rs. 33,421/-. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). 3. Learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee ex-parte by holding that during the course of appellate proceedings, assessee neither filed any wriƩen submissions nor uploaded any response in spite of issue of noƟces on various occasions. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Learned Authorized RepresentaƟve (“learned AR”) submiƩed before us that the assessee only acts as a commission agent to the sellers/agriculturists who bring their produce to the Agricultural Market CommiƩee for sale and assessee is enƟtled to only a fixed percentage of commission on the goods sold. The TDS is being made under secƟon 194Q by the purchasers on the enƟre value of purchases made by them from the assessee, who is only a commission agent of seller. He further submiƩed that assessee is in the process of geƫng a leƩer from the Agricultural Market CommiƩee to establish that he is only a commission agent however, so far the assessee could not get the same and for non- submission of the leƩer from the AMC, learned CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal by passing ex-parte order. Therefore, learned AR pleaded to remit the maƩer back to the file of the learned CIT(A) for one more opportunity of being heard. 5. Learned Departmental RepresentaƟve (“learned DR”) heavily relied on the orders of the lower authoriƟes and submiƩed that onus is on the assessee to establish that he is only a commission agent. However, in the absence of any documentary evidence, the orders passed by the ITA No. 1299/Hyd/2024 Santosh Reddysheetywar Page 3 of 5 lower authoriƟes are in accordance with law and need not be interfered with. 6. We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. The only plea of assessee is that he is a commission agent, enƟtled only to a commission at a fixed percentage ranging from 1 to 1.5% of the goods sold and therefore, quesƟon of admiƫng of enƟre sale value as income of the assessee does not arise. The contenƟon of the assessee is that he is in the process of geƫng a leƩer from the Agricultural Market CommiƩee to establish that he is only a commission agent however, so far the assessee could not get the same and for non- submission of the leƩer from the AMC, learned CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal by passing ex-parte order. 7. Requirement of law under secƟon 250 (6) of the Act is that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in wriƟng and shall state the points for determinaƟon, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision. Even in the absence of the assessee, it is always open for the learned CIT(A) to deal with the maƩer on merits instead of dismissing the same in limine. In the instant case also, the learned CIT(A) could have adverted to the points for determinaƟon and decided the same by assigning cogent reasons. Impugned order is conspicuous for its absence. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned orders do not comply with the requirement of SecƟon 250(6) of the Act and cannot be sustained. 9. With this view of the maƩer, we set aside the impugned order and restore the issue to the file of the learned CIT(A) to decide the issue afresh. We direct the assessee to co-operate with the learned CIT(A) in geƫng the maƩer disposed of on merits, without seeking any adjournments and the learned CIT(A) to take a fresh look at the maƩer, ITA No. 1299/Hyd/2024 Santosh Reddysheetywar Page 4 of 5 aŌer affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Grounds are accordingly treated as allowed for staƟsƟcal purposes. 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for staƟsƟcal purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on the 22nd January, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (MANJUNATHA. G) (K. NARASIMHA CHARY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated: 22/01/2025 OKK/sps ITA No. 1299/Hyd/2024 Santosh Reddysheetywar Page 5 of 5 Copy forwarded to: 1. Santosh Reddysheetywar, 8-17, Kubeer, Telangana-504103. 2. Income Tax Officer, Ward-(1), Nirmal. 3. Pr. CIT, Hyderabad. 4. DR, ITAT, Hyderabad. 5. GUARD FILE. TRUE COPY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, HYDERABAD "