Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (12) TMI 391 - ITAT AHMEDABAD

2015 (12) TMI 391 - ITAT AHMEDABAD - TMI - Addition in respect of commission - estimate the profit @0.50% of the total turnover - addition made in respect of unexplained cash credit u/s.68 - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- CIT(A) deleted this addition on the basis that the AO has rejected the books of account and estimated the income of the assessee at 0.52% of the total turnover. Therefore, once the books of account is rejected and the income of the assessee is estimated u/s.68 of the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ddition made by the AO of ₹ 28,24,000/- is hereby upheld and this issue raised by the Revenue is allowed. - Decided partly in favour of revenue. - I.T.A. No.1803/Ahd/2012 - Dated:- 15-10-2015 - SHRI G.D. AGARWAL,VICE PRESIDENT (AZ) And SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri Rakesh Jha, Sr.DR For The Respondent : -none- ORDER PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-V, Sur .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 3. It is, therefore, prayed that the appellate order of the Ld.CIT(A) may be cancelled and the order of the A.O. may be upheld. 2. Briefly stated facts are that the case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny assessment and the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) was framed vide order dated 26/12/2011. While framing the assessment order, the Assessing Officer (AO in short) rejected .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

T(A) reduced the estimation of commission receipts at 2.5% and deleted the addition of ₹ 28,84,000/-. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the Revenue is now in appeal before us. 3. Ground No.1 consists of two issues; namely addition made on account of commission receipts and addition made on account of deposits made in the bank account. 3.1. None appeared on behalf of the respondent assessee despite service of notice of hearing. Therefore, the appeal was take up for hearing in the abs .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

well as the AO finally submitted that no actual business was done and the assessee was simply providing accommodation bills. The appellant, in the assessment proceedings, while recording statement u/s.131 of the Act had stated that he used to earn 0.25% commission. I, therefore, estimate 0.25% commission after taking into account his statement and hence the net commission, which should be taxed, is estimated for ₹ 7,36,976/- as against estimated income of ₹ 14,73,953/- and, therefore .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ch accommodation entries. 4.1. We find that the ld.CIT(A) has based his decision on the basis that similar issue had been decided by the ld.CIT(A) in the case of Dinesh Jain, wherein the commission on accommodation entry is computed at 0.25% by his predecessor. Since the Revenue has not placed any material suggesting that this decision was challenged before the Tribunal, therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the ld.CIT(A), same is hereby upheld. Thus, this issue of R .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. We find that the AO has observed that no details has been filed in response to the show-cause notice dated 09/12/2007, wherein the explanation was sought in respect of the deposits made into the bank account with Dena Bank at Rampura Branch, Surat. The AO has observed as under:- In response to the above show cause notice, the assessee has not submitted any supporting/documentary evidences regarding the cash deposited and cheques deposited in the bank. The assessee has also not submitted any su .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

6.12.2008 11,000/- 8. 16.12.2008 5,000/- 9. 23.01.2009 3,500/- 10. 24.02.2009 4,000/- 11. 20.03.2009 3,000/- Total 12,80,000/- Apart from the above cash deposited in the bank, the assessee has also deposited various cheques in the bank, details of which are as under: Sr.No. Date Name of the person Amount 1. 16.10.2008 Shri Jamanbhai C.Sakaria 6,00,000/- 2. 22.10. 2008 Shri Jamanbhai C.Sakaria 8,00,000/- 3. 18.12. 2008 Shri Jivanbhai V.Patel 2,00,000/- 4. 10.01.2009 Shri Jivanbhai V.Patel 4,000 T .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

from Jamanbhai C.Sakaria and ₹ 2,00,000/- by cheque from Jivanbhai V. Patel on 18.12.2008. This fact is also verified from the bank statement of the above both parties and the both entries are found in their bank account. But the assessee has shown these amount in his bank book, received from M/s.Dhaval Export. Copy of ledger account obtained from M/s.Dhaval Export and it is noticed that Dhaval Export had not made any payment to the assessee during the year under consideration. Therefore, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version