Subba Reddy Mareddy Vs ITO (ITAT Visakhapatnam)
ITAT Visakhapatnam held that the assessee acted only as an agent (kaccha arahtia) and therefore it is eligible to get credit of the entire amount deducted as tax at source. Thus, there is no short fall of TDS as concluded by Revenue Authorities.
Facts- Assessee is an individual and carrying business as a commission agent by selling chillies on behalf of farmers under the name and style of M/s. Amarrnath Chillies Traders to registered dealers (GST Dealers). Assessee filed the return of income for the A.Y. 2022-23 on 21.09.2022 admitting a total income of Rs.9,35,130/-. The tax on total income declared worked out to Rs.67,881/-. A defective notice u/s. 139(9) of the Act dated 11.11.2022 was issued to the assessee by the Income tax Authority, CPC, Bengaluru. In response, assessee has not responded to the notice issued u/s. 139(9) of the Act. Thereafter, AO while processing the return of income u/s. 143(1) of the Act granted TDS only to the extent of Rs. 3,073/-as against Rs.1,24,286/- claimed by the assessee in the return of income.
CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.
Conclusion- Tribunal in the case of Yegneswari General Traders vs. ITO held that kaccha arahtias are concerned, the turnover does not include the sales effected on behalf of the principals and only the gross commission has to be considered for the purpose of 44AB.
