Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi

Mohd Javed, Delhi vs Ito,Ward-48(5), Delhi on 3 March, 2023

        THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
             DELHIBENCH 'E', NEW DELHI
      Before Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member
           Sh. Yogesh Kumar US, Judicial Member
        ITA No. 916/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year: 2017-18
Mohd Javed,                           Vs.   Income Tax Officer,
736, Gali Fazal Pura, Daryaganj,            Ward-48(5),
Sui Walan, Delhi-110062                     Delhi
(APPELLANT)                                 (RESPONDENT)
PAN No. AGPPJ7753C

                Assessee by : Sh. J. S. Kohli, CA
                Revenue by : Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Date of Hearing: 08.12.2022        Date of Pronouncement: 03.03.2023


                              ORDER

Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A)-3, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 29.03.2022.

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

"1. The appellate order framed is not justified in the eyes of law.

2. The learned CIT (Appeal) failed to appreciate the facts placed on the record during the course of appellate proceedings that the cash/receipts deposited in regular bank account were not a sale in the hands of appellant, it were related to the principal concern as by virtue of an agreement the appellant was to be remunerated with nominal fixed commission.

Mohd Javed

3. That the penalty appealable was deserved to kept in abeyance where the request was made that in quantum's appeal is mainly on the same issue that the appellant was only a mediator in respect of receipt appearing in Bank account. Further the principal concern had also confirmed such facts.

4. In the circumstances and fact of the case the appellant was not liable U/s 44AB so the learned CIT (Appeal) was not justified in confirming the penalty U/s 271B."

3. Suffice to say that owing to the cash deposits of Rs.4.3 Cr. in the bank account and the sales turnover of Rs.4.01 lacs in the ITR the revenue levied penalty u/s 271B considering the deposits of Rs.4.3 Cr. as turnover of the assessee.

4. Having gone through the entire material on record, we find that the assessee is a commission agent of Gujarat Milk Cooperative Federation having milk booth at Darya Ganj, Delhi and earning a commission margin @ 0.55% to 12.16% per unit on butter milk to paneer. The same are as under:

Mohd Javed 4 ITA No. 916/Del/2022 Mohd Javed

5. Since, the assessee only a commission agent and earns margin as prescribed in Gujarat Milk Cooperative Federation rules as reflected in column 5 above, we hold that the penalty levied u/s 271B obliterated.

6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 03/03/2023.

              Sd/-                                 Sd/-
 (Yogesh Kumar US)                         (Dr. B. R. R. Kumar)
  Judicial Member                          Accountant Member
Dated: 03/03/2023
*Subodh Kumar/AK, Sr. PS*
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(Appeals)
5. DR: ITAT
                                                ASSISTANT REGISTRAR