LAWS(ALL)-2004-11-47

ANIS AHMAD Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Decided On November 01, 2004
ANIS AHMAD Appellant
V/S
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant claims itself to be acting as commission agent of hides and skins for the assessment year 1984-85. The Income-tax Officer treated the appellant as a trader and not a commission agent. In appeal, the matter was remanded by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) with certain directions. On remand the Income-tax Officer, asked the appellant to establish that it was acting as a commission agent and not as a trader. The appellant supplied the list of parties for whom it had acted as a commission agent. Summons under Section 131 of the Income-tax Act, hereafter referred to as "the Act", was issued. Five persons appeared and the remaining five for reasons best known did not appear. On the basis of the statement recorded in respect of the persons who had appeared before the Income-tax Officer had accepted the plea of the appellant acting as commission agent in respect of these persons, whereas in respect of the remaining five persons who did not appear the Income-tax Officer treated the transactions as having been done in the capacity of a trader. The addition regarding investment and profit was made to the declared income. In appeal, however, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has set aside the order by holding as follows :

(2.) The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) treated the appellant as a commission agent. The Revenue feeling aggrieved preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by the impugned order has allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue and has held that the assessee had failed to bring out any evidence that the transactions in question were not done by it, but the transactions were conducted on commission basis and, therefore, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not justified to observe that the appellant should be treated as conducting all the transactions on commission basis without any material brought on record by the appellant.

(3.) We have heard Shri Shakeel Ahmad, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri A.N. Mahajan, learned standing counsel for the Revenue.