9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 398X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as turnover of the assessee or receipt of the assessment. Assessee has filed supporting document like form 26AS (which shows assessee was regularly receiving commission payment from the Principal Outlet and Letter of appointment issued appointing assessee as commission agent in M/s. Anika Bajaj which clearly shows that the assessee was carrying its agency business for and on behalf of M/s. Anika Bajaj). Since the gross turnover for the period under consideration was less than Rs. 1.00 crore, hence the accounts are not required to be audited as per section 44AB - Hence penalty imposed by the lower authorities was without any basis. Appeal of assessee allowed. - ITA No. 245/Hyd/2023 - - - Dated:- 7-6-2023 - Shri R.K. Panda, Accoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the CBDT Circular No.452 dated 17th March, 1986 regarding applicability of section 44AB of the I.T. Act, 1961, in the cases of commission agents, arahtias, etc., which is against the principles of natural justice and penalty order needs to be quashed. 6. Any other ground or grounds of appeal that may be urged at the time of hearing . 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and is a sole proprietor running agency business in the name of M/s. Susma Motors at Thorrur and M/s. Capital Motors at Mahabubabad through 2 sub-outlets on behalf of M/s. Bajaj Anika, Warangal who are dealers of Hero Vehicles and the assessee running aforesaid two outlets on behalf of M/s. Bajaj Anika i.e. booking vehicles on behal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 1.00 crore as per CBDT Circular No. 452 dated 17th March, 1986 to buttress his case para materia similar to Kuchha Arahita referred in the above said circular. 6. The learned AR submitted the following written submissions: The appellant, an individual. filed his return of income for the A.Y 2017- 18 on 19.12.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 6,04,030/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that the appellant had total credits of Rs. 2,22,12,776/-(after including the cash deposits of Rs. 7,97,500/- during demonetization period) in all the appellant's bank accounts (7 no's). According to the learned Assessing Officer, the said credits in all the appellant's Bank Accounts (7 No' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts that, the facts of his case are similar to Kuchha Arahtia and, therefore, even the turnover does not include the sales effected on behalf of the Principals viz., M/s. Anika Bajaj, Warangal and only the gross commission, Receipts as Authorized Service Dealer (ASD) for Bajaj Auto Limited dealing especially in providing after sales service, regular maintenance and servicing and repair services of Bajaj Vehicles viz., 2 Wheeler Vehicles alone are to be considered for the purpose of Section 44AB. It was also submitted that the appellant had not transferred any 2-Wheelers to someone else, he is only an agent acted on behalf of M/s Anika Bajaj, Warangal i.e., principal and invoices for the said 2- Wheeler's sales are raised by the principal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of ITO vs Bindra Ban Bansi Lal (2001) 78 ITD 228(Asr), The same was ignored by the leaned Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A), which is incorrect and bad in law. 5. It is further submitted that, the CIT(A) was not justified, in the foregoing circumstances, to ignore the facts placed before him and without giving reasonable opportunity to submit the further information, if any, and dismiss the appeal on irrelevant consideration. 6. Coming to the facts, it is humbly submitted that the appellant is purely an agent acting on behalf of his principal and appellant has received an amount of Rs. 1,92,02,715/- from various prospective buyers, who made down payments during the year 2016-17 and the said collected amounts were d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder consideration was worked out to Rs. 2,22,12,776/- and therefore, the Assessing Officer had imposed penalty for Rs. 1,11,065/-. The learned CIT (A), despite the reliance by the assessee, on the Board s Circular and the assessee s contention that the assessee was merely working as a commission agent for M/s. Anika Bajaj and have made bookings for the principal outlet, had rejected the contention of the assessee that the assessee was merely working under the directions of the principal M/s. Anika Bajaj for booking of the scooters and for those services, the assessee was receiving the commission. The learned CIT (A) after reiterating the submission of the assessee had rejected the claim of the assessee on the pretext that the assessee was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
