TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 391X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is view of the ld.CIT(A) and no finding is given whether such deposits relate to the commission received by the assessee. In the absence of such specific finding, it cannot be presumed that the deposits as made were, in fact, the commission received by the assessee. Therefore, the decision of the ld.CIT(A) on this issue is hereby set aside and the addition 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessment order, preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), who after considering the submissions of the assessee partly allowed the appeal, whereby the ld.CIT(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 absence of assessee. 3.2. In respect of the deletion of commission receipts, the ld.Sr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Revenue s appeal is rejected. 4.2 Apropos to issue regarding deletion of addition of ₹ 28,84,000/- made by invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Act, the ld.Sr.DR submitted that the ld.CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition merely on the basis that the AO has estimated the commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. 16.12.2008 89,000/- 7. 16.12.2008 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t 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, the assessee s submission is not found correct. iii) As per the bank account of Dena Bank it is found that the assessee has received cheque of ₹ 4,000/- on 10.01.2009 from Shri Jivanbhai V.Patel. The assessee had not submitted any reply in this regards. Thus, the assessee failed to prove the source of cash deposit of ₹ 12,80,000/- as well as the cheques deposit of ₹ 16,04,000/-, totalling to ₹ 28,84,000/-. As such the provision of section 68 of the I.T.Act is clearly attracted in this case. The provisions of section 68 stipulates that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
