Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

The Income Tax Officer, Ward-8 (2) , Surat Versus M/s. Girishkumar Shantilal Sheth (HUF) , Surat

2015 (12) TMI 391 - ITAT AHMEDABAD

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 Act, it cannot be made separately of the d .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

/- 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, Surat [ CIT(A) in short] dated 15/05/2012 pert .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sessing 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 the books of account and estimated the comm .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eceipts 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 de .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tual 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, the appellant gets relief of ₹ 7,36 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 Revenue s appeal is rejected. 4.2 Apropos to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 supporting document to prove the source of ca .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 Total 16,04,000/- i) As per the bank account .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

00/- 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, the assessee s submission is not found corr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version