TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 811X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The appellant has not been able to explain this discrepancy that was pointed out. No reconciliation statement has been submitted. It was also not explained why funds were received in a piece meal manner especially when the claim was that it was against sale of immovable property. In view of this, addition made is confirmed. Disallowance of commission expense - Commission expense of Rs. 40,262/- – Held that:- Appellant had not furnished the name and address of the parties to whom the said commission had been paid. In the absence of details the commission payment claimed had been disallowed - I.T.A. No.123/Mum/2011 - - - Dated:- 6-11-2013 - Shri Vijay Pal Rao And Shri D. Karunakara Rao,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Dharmesh Shah For the Respondent : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, DR ORDER Per D. Karunakara Rao, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee on 6.1.2011 is against the order of CIT (A)-12, Mumbai dated 15.10.2010 for the AY 2006-2007. In this appeal, assessee raised the following grounds which read as under: "1. The Ld CIT (A) has erred in law and in facts in passing order u/s 250 of the Act dated 5.10.2010. 2. The Ld CIT (A) has erred in law and in fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee, the in-laws‟ have filed copies of the bills evidencing the sale of jewellery to M/s. Prerak Gems, copies of which are filed before us in the form of paper book. When the enquiries were further extended to M/s. Prerak Gems, assessee received a letter from M/s. Prerak Gems dated 4.11.2009 and the contents of the said letter read as under: "Please refer to your letter dated 12.10.2009, in which you have directed to submit the details of transaction with Madhukant J. Gandhi, A/23, Satellite Center, Premchand Nagar Road, Vastrapur, Ahmedabd and from Jashubhai Gandhi (address same) during the financial year 2005-2006. In this connection, we submit that as per our record, we have not carried out any type of transaction with above mentioned parties." 4. Thus, M/s. Prerak Gems denied having any transaction with the Gandhis. However, after a gap of a month i.e., 7.12.2009, M/s. Prerak Gems filed another letter dated 3.12.2009 confirming the purchase of jewellery by them and the cash payments were made to the Gandhis, which is the source of income for the cash credits found in the aforesaid SB Account of the assessee. However, the AO did not accept the subsequent letter fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Revenue Authorities as well as the material placed before us. It is also an undisputed fact that the alleged creditors are not subject to tax and they are not borne on the income tax files. Further, we have also perused the contents of para 5.3 of the impugned order and found that the said para is relevant and it is required to be extracted here for the sake of completeness of the present order and the same reads as under: "5.3. I have carefully considered the above issue and I find that the contention of the appellant cannot be accepted. As rightly pointed out by the AO in the remand report, the appellant has brought nothing on record to prove that the sum in question had been received by the appellant from his father in law and mother-In- law against purchase of the appellant‟s flat. Though the appellant has claimed that the said amount had been raised by his in-laws on sale of their personnel jewellery, it is seen that the AO‟s enquiry had dearly revealed that there was no verification of the said sale. In fact the concern M/s. Prerak Gems had clearly stated that as per their records, they had not carried out any type of transaction with the in-laws of the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also not been able to provide any proof of a return of income filed by the above 2 persons wherein capital gains on the sale of jewellery has been declared to prove that there indeed was a sale. In view of these discrepancies I find that the contention of the appellant cannot be accepted. Further I find that no co-relation can be provided by the appellant vis- -vis the said sale of jewellery and the deposit of cash in his bank account. For example there is a deposit of Rs. 30,100/- in his bank account on 7/5/2005 which cannot be related to any of the so-called sales made by his father-in-law order or his mother-in law. Similarly there are other deposits which also do not co-relate with the sales made. The appellant has not been able to explain this discrepancy that was pointed out. No reconciliation statement has been submitted. It was also not explained why funds were received n a piece meal manner especially when the claim was that it was against sale of immovable property. In view of this, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of the AO on this issue the addition made is therefore confirmed." 9. Considering the above, we are of the opinion that the decision take by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
