TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1633X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g officer at 0.30% per ₹ 1 lakh would be ₹ 12,00,000/– and ₹ 6,00,000/– if commission rate of 0.15% per lakh as adopted by the assessee is considered. Learned CIT(A) accepting assessee’s claim has estimated the commission income for post search period at ₹ 6,00,000/– and sustained the addition to that extent. Conclusion of the First Appellate Authority to be on a reasonable basis hence, do not see any reason to interfere with the same. - Decided against revenue. - ITA No.6086/Mum/2016 to 6092/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year :2007–08 to 2013–14) - - - Dated:- 15-12-2017 - SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appellant by :Ms.S. Padmaja O R D E R PER BENCH Above said appeals are filed by the department against a common order dated 29/07/2016 of learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals (Mumbai) 48 pertaining to Assessment Years 2007 08, 2008 09, 2009 10, 2010 11, 2011 12, 2012 13 2013 14. 2. All these appeals have been filed on the following common grounds: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in deleting the additio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further submitted that the aforesaid undisclosed income was earned from Angadia business.In response to the notice issued under section.153C of the Act. the assessee filed its return of incomeoffering the total cash seized of ₹ 82,22,200/ as his undisclosed income for the A.Y.2013 14. In this context, it is relevant to observe, during the search operation a statement under section.132(4) was also recorded from one Daudayal Sharma, stated to be the employee of the assessee.On confrontation of the seized document, the concerned employee stated that M/s. Indrapuri Express Courier Pvt. Ltd., was involved in cash transfer on commission basis through hawala. In this context, the concerned employee also explained the mode and manner of the cash transfer. He further stated that no books were maintained and the details were entered in a small diary. As recorded by the Assessing Officer, the concerned employee also stated that on an average ₹ 40,00,000/ of cash was transferred every day and commission of 1 to 1.5 % is charged for ₹ 1000/ of cash transfer. Further, the concerned employee explained in detail the entries written in code word. On the basis of the entries mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tailed submissions contesting the addition made by the Assessing Officer. It was submitted by the assessee, when the search and seizure operation was conducted in a particular Financial Year and the cash seized during such search and seizure operation was owned up and declared as undisclosed income by the assessee in that year, no further addition can be made on estimation either in the Assessment Year, wherein, such search and seizure operation was conducted nor any addition can be made on extrapolation in any preceding Assessment years. It was submitted, except the cash seized and a small diary containing two pages no other incriminating material was found. Therefore, in absence of any material/evidence it cannot be said that the assessee has earned undisclosed income in the precedingassessment years. It was submitted, the seized diary is also undated, hence, the authenticity of the entries made therein cannot be established nor it can be considered to be representing assessee s transaction for a particular assessment year. In support of his contention, the assessee relied upon various case laws. After considering the submissions of the assessee and in thelight of the decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion on estimate basis in absence of any evidence can be made in A.Y.2007 08 to A.Y. 2012 13 and accordingly deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer in these assessment years. 7. When the appeals were called for hearing, no one was present for the assessee. It is seen from record, as per letter dated 16/09/2017, Shri Ajay R Singh, Advocate who was appointed to argue the case on behalf of the assessee has withdrawn his power on the instruction of the assessee. It is also relevant to note, inspite of issuance of notice of hearing through RPAD neither the assessee has appeared before us nor has engaged a new Counsel to represent him. In view of the aforesaid, we proceed to dispose off the appeals ex parte qua the assessee, after hearing learned Departmental Representative and on the basis of materials available on record. 8. The ld. Departmental representative relying upon the observations of the Assessing Officer submitted that in course of search and seizure operation apart from cash found from the locker and the business premises amounting to ₹ 82,20,000/ , a diary was also seized which indicated cash transactions of ₹ 40,00,000/ in a day. She submitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e search and seizure operation when the assessee was called upon to explain the source of the cash found as well as the contents of the seized diary, the assessee owned up the cash found from his office premises as well as the locker to be his undisclosed / unaccounted income from Angadia business and also has offered it as income in the return of income filed in response to notice issued under section.153C of the Act for the A.Y.2013 14. However, the Assessing Officer on the basis of the seized diary has concluded that the assessee must have earned similar income not only in the preceding assessment year but for the post search period and accordingly has made addition on the basis of extrapolation of the entries found in the seized document. As recorded by the Assessing Officer, the seized document is a small diary containing two pages. As observed by the learned First Appellate Authority and also perusal of the seized document which is reproduced by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order reveals that seized document is undated, however, it reveals transactions for a particular day. Though, in absence of any date mentioned in the seized paper, it cannot be related to a part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
