9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 772X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reads as under : "1. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs.9,150/- to the commission income on the ground that the appellant had suppressed the commission" 2.1 Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and derives income as commission agent. A search and seizure action u/s.132(1) of the I.T. Act was carried out at the residential and business premises of the assessee on 04-07-2007. In response to notice u/s.153A(a) the assessee filed the return of income for the impugned assessment year on 13-11-2009 declaring total income at Rs.66,520/-. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had shown receipt of gross commission at Rs.20,850/- as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the CIT(A). 5. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) and the Paper Book filed on behalf of the assessee. There is no dispute to the fact that the search took place on 04-07-2007 and the assessee had not filed any return of income prior to the date of search. There is also no dispute to the fact that the assessee filed the return of income for the first time in response to notice u/s.153A(a) declaring total income of Rs.66,520/- on 13-11-2009. There is also no dispute to the fact that the assessee had declared gross commission of Rs.20,850/- for RTO liaison work and no details were furnished before the Assessing Officer, such as details/evidence related t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see is not at all applicable to the facts of the present case. In this view of the matter this ground by the assessee is partly allowed. 7. Ground of appeal No.2 by the assessee reads as under : "1. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs.1,25,726/- out of Rs.1,80,726/- stating that appellant has no evidence regarding cash brought forward from earlier year & failed to appreciate that there was opening cash balance of Rs.1,25,726/-." 7.1 Facts of the case, in brief, are that the Assessing Officer noted that during the course of search action some fixed deposit receipts were found in the name of the assessee. From the perusal of the capital account as on 31- 03-2002 he noted that the opening balance has been sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d keeping cash in hand in the business. However, the Ld.CIT(A) was also not satisfied with the explanation given by the assessee and gave partial relief to the assessee by holding as under : "4.3 After careful consideration of material available on record reveals that the opening balance of Rs.5,51,321/- consisted of fixed deposits of Rs.2,73,700/- and Rs.42,229/- with Mahesh Sahakari Bank and Mahesh Mahila respectively. Likewise, this opening balance also consisted of balances of Rs.57,590/-, Rs.49,000/- and Rs.3,076/- in Recurring Deposit - Mahesh Sahakari Bank, Recurring Deposit and Mahesh Sahakari Bank Account 9293 respectively. These balances are brought forward balances from the earlier year. Therefore, these amounts cannot represent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee has withdrawn another Rs.50,000/- on 19-01-2002 without exhausting the same. Since the revenue is not in appeal before us against the order of the CIT(A) restricting the disallowance to Rs.1,25,726/- as against Rs.1,80,750/-, disallowed by the Assessing Officer, therefore, the order of the CIT (A) in our opinion is the most reasoned one and does not require any interference. We accordingly uphold the same and the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. 11. So far as the argument of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that no incriminating material was found and therefore no addition could be made we have already decided the issue against the assessee while deciding Ground of appeal No.1 and therefore the same requires no further adjudi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as under : "1. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs.10,000/-, on account of unexplained investment". 14.1 After hearing both the sides, we find the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.10,000/- towards a new deposit with Mahesh Sahakari Bank in absence of any proper explanation by the assessee. In appeal the Ld.CIT(A) upheld such action for which the assessee is in appeal before us. We are of the considered opinion that the addition of Rs.10,000/- is not warranted in view of the addition sustained by us in the preceding paragraphs on account of commission for RTO liaison work and the cash available in the initial assessment order, i.e. A.Y. 2002-03. The addition sustained in the above 2 years is more than ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
