Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (7) TMI 364 - AT - Income TaxEstimation of commission income on accommodation entries - As per revenue assessee is merely an entry provider and has not carried out any genuine transaction, the estimation of commission @ 1% of the total turnover is fair and reasonable and the assessee does not deserve any leniency considering the nature of activity carried on by it - HELD THAT:- It is evident, while the Assessing Officer has charged commission @ 1% on both purchase and sale turnover, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced the rate of commission to 0.15% and that too only on one of the transactions i.e., either purchase or sale. Notably, while deciding identical issue in assessee’s own case in assessment year 2010–11, the Tribunal, in the order referred to above, has upheld estimation of commission income @ 1% of the total turnover. However, to be fair to the assessee, the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal was not available before learned Commissioner (Appeals) while deciding the appeals for the impugned assessment years. We set aside the impugned orders of learned Commissioner (Appeals) and restore the issue back to his file for fresh adjudication keeping in view the order passed by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2010–11, as referred to above. The assessee must be provided a reasonable opportunity of being heard before deciding the issues. Grounds raised are allowed for statistical purposes. Validity of re–opening of assessment after inordinate delay of 307 days - Filing of cross objections - HELD THAT:- Perusal of the cross objections filed by the assessee would reveal that the grounds raised therein are purely technical in nature challenging the validity of re–opening of assessment under section 147 of the Act as well as rejection of books of account under section 145(3) of the Act. It is evident, before learned Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee had not raised any grounds challenging the validity of re–opening of assessment under section 147 of the Act. On a query from the Bench, learned Counsel appearing for the assessee conceded this fact. Thus, the aforesaid factual position clearly establishes that the cross objections have been filed by the assessee raising such technical issue challenging the validity of re–opening of assessment after inordinate delay of 307 days is only as an after–thought without having any reasonable cause. In view of the aforesaid, we decline to condone the delay in filing the cross objections.
|