9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 338X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. 1118/Chd/2017, wherein, following grounds have been raised by the Revenue:- 1. The Ld. CIT (A), Ludhiana has erred in law to delete the addition of Rs. 1,09,35,518/- on account of Commission Income despite considering the fact" that AO has proved that assessee is merely an entry provider and assessee's books are not reliable, hence AO has rejected assessee's books of account. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law to rely on the order of CIT(A) for A.Y. 2012-13 in the case of assessee ignoring the fact that in A. Y. 2013 -14, the books of accounts were rejected for detailed reasons given in the assessment order and only income assessed in the case of the assessee in A. Y. 2013-14 was commission income for providing entries, vis-a- vis the A. Y. 2012-13 when AO added commission income over and above the returned income. Without prejudice the department is in appeal in AY 2012-13 before the Hon'ble ITAT. 3. The Ld. CIT(A), Ludhiana has erred in law to delete the addition of Rs. 38, 06, 50, 000/- on account of differences of balances in the parties accounts despite the fact that the assessee had failed to file any details before the Assessing officer inspite of repeated o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that as per the claim of the appellant the assessing officer has failed to bring any evidence to corroborate its theory of bogus sale to certain parties. It is also important fact that a survey had been carried out at the premises of the appellant and during survey, no adverse material/ evidence has been found by the assessing officer to support his contentions. It is also observed that the books of accounts of appellant has not been rejected by the assessing officer, whereas on the other hand, assessing officer is claiming addition of commission income of the assessee on the basis of the same sales and purchase transaction. The assessing officer has made addition after applying the rate of commission at the rate of 0. 50 % after accepting book results of the appellant. After this is well supported by the fact that while making the assessment order, addition of commission income has been made o the returned income declared by the assessee. On one hand, the Assessing Officer is accepting purchase & sales as bogus and on other hand, he is applying rate of commission @ 0.50% on the bogus sales. I have found considerable force in the claim of the appellant that all the creditors & d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been accepted by the Department in the past years even in scrutiny assessment proceedings carried out u/s 143(3) of the Act. That the assessing officer has made the impugned addition merely on the basis of assumptions and presumptions observing that the net profit shown by the assessee were very low. That the assessee had duly explained during the assessment proceedings that the assessee was working on a very low margin. All the requisite details and explanations were furnished before the Assessing Officer. That the AO without pointing any discrepancy in the books of accounts, rejected the books of account merely on assumption and presumption basis. No specific mistake was pointed out warranting rejection of books of account. That even during the survey proceedings, nothing adverse was found which could prove that the assessee had been working on commission basis only. That the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings for Assessment year 2012-13 not only recorded the statement of the assessee but also recorded the statement of many parties with whom purchase and sale transactions have been made by the assessee. The said parties duly confirmed that they were carrying the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal of the Revenue are, therefore, dismissed. 8. Ground No.3 The Revenue through Ground No. 3 has contested the action of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 38, 06, 50, 000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of difference in balances. The Assessing Officer observed that assessee had paid huge amounts to various parties under the head Loans and Advances, however, there were discrepancies in the amounts when compared with the balance sheet of the other parties. The Assessing Officer observed that the balance of loans and advances in the assessee books of account did not match with the balance shown as payable to the assessee by the parties/concerns in their balance sheet. The differences have been calculated and tabulated by the AO which are summarized as under: Party Name Amount of Loans & Advances shown in the assessee books of account Amount shown in the books of accounts of the parties Difference Balmukhi Textiles Pvt. Ltd Rs. 182491000 Rs. 79171500 Rs. 103319500 Brijeshwari Textiles Pvt. Ltd Rs. 359074200 Rs. 95754700 Rs. 263319500 Shiva Spin Fab Pvt. Ltd Rs. 311305000 Rs. 297294000 Rs. 14011000 Total Rs. 380650000 The Asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ain head of the balance sheet i. e. the amount of investments held and the amount of loans and advances given by the assessee, both are assets for the assessee. The AR further contended that this does not have any effect on the computation of income. The copy of account of the assessee in the books of said concerns/parties along with the confirmation from the said parties that the assessee hold balances in their concerns as per the reconciled statement have been enclosed. The AR argued that complete books of accounts were produced before the AO and audited Balance Sheet with enclosure were also placed on the assessment record during the assessment proceedings, however, the AO ignored the evidence placed on record. As per AR the AO neither gave reasonable opportunity asking for such difference nor made any enquiry from the parties about the balances appearing in their books in the name of Sh. Vasu Kalia the assessee. Thus as per AR the principal of natural justice have been violated. On merits the AR submitted that the amounts were duly reflected in the balance sheet of the assessee and some of them are old balances appearing in the balance sheets of the preceding years., Regarding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e copy of the Bank Statement to substantiate the same. It has also been argued that the Share Application Money is appearing in the Balance Sheet of M/s. Balmukhi Textiles Pvt. Ltd. for the year ending 31. 03. 2013. To verify the above contention raised by the assessee, the balance sheet and bank accounts statement of the assessee have been called and placed on file. A perusal of the same shows that 22500 shares were allotted by M/s. Balmukhi Textiles Pvt. Ltd. to Sh. Vasu Kalia during the financial year 2010-11 and were appearing in the Balance sheet of both the assessee and M/s. Balmukhi Textiles Pvt. Ltd. as on 31.03. 2011 & 31. 03. 2012. The Bank Account Statement of the assessee has also been examined showing payment of this amount. As no amount was paid during the year and these are old balances, hence no addition can be made during the year. As regard Share Application Money of Rs. 5, 83, 19, 500/-, the amount has been given during the year out of the bank account of the assessee with Allahabad Bank which is regularly appearing in the Balance Sheet of the assessee. The amount is duly appearing in the Balance Sheet of M/s. Balmukhi Textiles Pvt. Ltd. also under the head Sha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 03. 2011 & 31. 03. 2012. The Bank Account Statement of the assessee has also been examined showing payment of this amount. As no amount was paid during the year and these are old balances, hence no addition can be made during the year under consideration. As regard Share Application Money of Rs. 4, 83,19, 500 /- the amount has been given during the year out of the bank account of the assessee with Allahabad Bank which is regularly appearing in the Balance Sheet of the assessee. The amount is duly appearing in the Balance Sheet of M/s. Brijeshwari Textiles Pvt. Ltd. also under the head Share Application Money received during the year. A perusal of the documents filed shows that no addition of this account is called for. (c) Balances with M/s. Shiva Spinfab Pvt. Ltd. The AR submitted that in the books of accounts of the assessee Sh. Vasu Kalia an amount of Rs. 31,13, 05, 000/- has been shown as Loan & Advances to M/s. Shiva Spinfab Pvt. Ltd. which in the books of M/s. Shiva Spinfab Pvt. Ltd. is shown under two heads as Share Application Money received and Sundry Payable amounting to Rs. 1, 40, 11, 000/- and Rs. 29,72, 94, 000/- respectively. (The AR submitted that in the writte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the assessee. The Assessing Officer has neither doubted nor made any inquiries regarding the source of funds of the payments received by the assessee nor of other parties from whom the assessee received payments. After considering the rival submissions and going through the detailed order of the CIT(A) on this issue, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A) on this issue. This ground of the appeal is accordingly dismissed. 11. Ground No. 4 : This ground is general in nature and does not require any specific adjudication. In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed. ITA No. 245/Chd/2018 (A.Y. 2013-14):- 12. Now, we take up ITA No. 245/Chd/2018, wherein, following grounds have been raised by the Revenue :- 1. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in deleting the addition of Rs. 37,52,94,000/- on account of 'differences in balance'under the head of Sundry Payables and Loan & Advances received from M/s Brijeshwari Textiles Pvt. Ltd., M/s Metro Synthetics, M/s Balmukhi Textiles Pvt. Ltd. And M/s Vasu Trading Company not appearing in their Audited Balance Sheets. 2. Whether on the fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wn by the assessee in its Balance Sheet in the name of the these parties, hence the difference was taken as undisclosed income of the assessee. The AO accordingly made addition of Rs. 10, 33, 19, 500 + Rs. 27, 19,74, 500 & Rs. 2, 12, 00, 000 to the returned income of the assessee as undisclosed income u/s 68 being part of overall addition of Rs. 58, 47,42, 100 /-. 14. Being aggrieved by the above action of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) and pleaded that there were no differences or mismatch in the figures as alleged by the AO. The assessee reconciled the accounts/figures before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) after going through the accounts of the assessee and that of the other parties got satisfied that there was no mismatch. Further, the assessee also filed evidences proving the source of the funds. The assessee also explained that some of the balances appearing in the balance Sheet were of earlier years and that all the transaction carried during the relevant assessment year were done through banking channel. The concerned parties were assessed to income tax. Assessment in their case carried u/s 143(3) of the Act and their capacity to make the advances/investme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has given his report without specifically pointing out any discrepancy in the submission. Thereafter to verify the source of the payments during the current year as well as during the preceding years, the AR was requested to file the Bank Account statement from which the payments were made as well as the balance sheet of the preceding year of the assessee to verify the balances appearing in the preceding years. The Balance Sheets of the concerns/parties have also been called for to verify the balances appearing in their balance sheet in the preceding year in the name of the assessee. The party wise position is discussed below: (a) Balances with M/s. Vasu Trading Co. :- The AR submitted that in the books of accounts of the assessee, an amount of Rs. 7, 91, 71, 500/- has been shown as Payables to M/s. Vasu Trading Co. whereas in the books of M/s. Vasu Trading Co. an amount of Rs. 18, 24, 91,000/- is shown under the head Loan & Advances. It is submitted that in the books of the assessee the amount received from M/s. Vasu Trading Co. is reflected under three different heads as Share allotted (22500), Share Application Money received and Sundry Payable amounting to Rs. 4, 50,00, 00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion Money received during the year and also in the balance sheet of the party M/s. Vasu Trading Co. under the head Loan & advances. A perusal of the documents filed shows that no addition on this account is called for. (b) Balances with M/s. Metro Synthetics:- The AR submitted that in the books of accounts of the assessee an amount of Rs. 12, 99, 48,100/- has been shown as Sundry Payables in the name of M/s. Metro Synthetics. In the books of the account of M/s. Metro Synthetics the amount appearing is Rs. 40,19, 22, 600/. This amount of Rs. 40, 19, 22, 600/- is shown in the books of the assessee M/s. Balmukhi Textiles Pvt. Ltd. under three different heads as Share Allotted (125477), Share Application Money received and Sundry payables amounting to Rs. 25,09, 54, 000/-, Rs. 2, 10, 20, 500/- and Rs. 12,99, 48, 100/- respectively. As per AR, the AO has considered only Rs. 12, 99, 48, 100/- shown as Sundry payables but ignored the Share Application Money of Rs. 2, 10, 20, 500/- received by the assessee from M/s. Metro Synthetics and the 125477 Shares already allotted, valuing Rs. 25, 09, 54, 000/-. The AR has argued that the shares numbering 125477 were allotted by the assessee to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so an old balance given out of the regular sources and appearing in the balance sheet of the preceding year. (c) Balances with M/s. Brijeshwari Textiles Pvt. Ltd.:- The AR submitted that in the books of accounts of the assessee company, an amount of Rs. 2, 12, 00, 000 /- has been shown under the head Loan & advances given to M/s. Brijeshwari Textiles Pvt. Ltd. whereas in the books of M/s. Brijeshwari Textiles Pvt. Ltd., this amount of Rs. 2, 12, 00,000/- is shown under the head Share Application Money. As per AR, the AO has considered the amount of Rs. 2, 12, 00, 000 /- shown as Loans & Advances appearing in the books of the assessee outstanding in the name of M/s. Brijeshwari Textiles Pvt. Ltd. but did not considered the share application money of Rs. 10,01, 77, 000/- appearing in the books of M/s. Brijeshwar Textiles Pvt. Ltd. which includes Rs. 2, 12, 00, 000 /- received from the assesses M/s. Balmukhi Textiles Pvt. Ltd. The AR has argued that the Share application money of Rs. 2, 12, 00, 000/- was given during the financial year 2011-12 by the assessee out of its the bank account with Allahabad Bank and credited in the bank account of M/s. Brijeshwari Textiles Pvt. Ltd. als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the transactions under the separate heads. The Ld. CIT(A) has duly examined and reconciled the accounts. The source of the payments being from bank accounts of the respective parties has been duly proved. The ld. CIT(A) has duly and elaborately discussed the details of the entries as noted above and has also found that in the case of first two parties, there were old balances outstanding and that the addition to that extent cannot be made in the assessment carried in the subsequent year and further that the share application money received during the year was transferred from the bank accounts of the respective parties. In the case of the third party, no amount was advanced during the year and that the same was an old balance given out of the regular sources and appearing in the balance sheet of the preceding years. The Ld. DR could not point out any distinguishing fact justifying our interference in the above well-reasoned order of the CIT(A). We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) on this issue. This ground of appeal is, therefore, dismissed. 16. Ground No. 2 : Vide Ground No. 2 of the Appeal, the revenue has agitated the action of the CIT(A) in d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the assessment year 2010-11 onwards and reflected in the relevant balance sheets. Under the facts and the circumstances of the case, the arguments of the AR appear acceptable and the addition of Rs. 12, 99, 48, 100/-, as sundry payable to M/s. Metro Synthetics, is not found sustainable and hence deleted." 17. We have heard the rival contentions of both the representatives of the parties. As discussed by the Ld. CIT(A), the impugned additions had been made by the AO on mere suspicion without bringing on file as how the continuous and regular balances outstanding since assessment year 2010-11 onwards and reflected in the relevant balance sheets can be treated as unaccounted income of the assessee for the year under consideration. Even in the assessment carried out in the case of the creditor, no doubt as to the source of the amount has been made by the AO. Without bringing any adverse evidence on the file or pointing any discrepancy in the explanations submitted by the assessee, the AO was not justified in making the impugned additions. We therefore do not find any infirmity in the order of the AO on this issue also. This ground of the appeal is accordingly dismissed. 18. Gro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessment was made under Section 143(3) in the case of Sh. Vasu Kalia Prop. M/s. Vasu Trading Co. by ITO Ward-6(3), Ludhiana, it cannot be said that it is merely Entry provider because in the case of Sh. Vasu Kalia Prop. M/s. Vasu Trading Co., the CIT(A)-3, Ludhiana decided the appeal in favour of the appellant (M/s. Vasu Trading Co.) and the addition made by the AO was deleted. It was also submitted by the AR that the addition has been made without any conclusive evidence with the AO. As per AR, the accommodation entry provider is the person who provides money to the tax payer through cheque against receipt of cash but there is no such instance in this case. It is also submitted that the share applicant is regularly Income Tax assessee and assessed to tax with the same Assessing Officer. Moreover, M/s. Vasu Trading Co. is an old share holder of the assessing company and during the year applied for more shares in the assessee company by providing 'share application money'. Regarding the fresh share application money of Rs. 5, 83, 00, 000/- from M/s. Vasu Trading Co., it was submitted by the AR that the amounts have been received through cheques only and addition on acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was only on the basis of mere doubt or suspicion which was not sustainable as per law. The Ld. CIT(A) has, therefore, rightly deleted the addition made by the AO on this issue. This ground of the revenue is, therefore, dismissed. 21. Ground No.4: Vide Ground No. 4 of the appeal, the Revenue has contested the action of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by the AO of Rs. 20, 592/- on account of commission income. The AO observed that from the facts it was clear that assessee was merely an entry provider. As per AO the books of accounts of the assessee were not reliable and hence rejected the same. The AO then estimated the Commission income from business of entry providing @ 0. 50% of the gross receipts of Rs. 41,18, 400 /- and computed the commission income at Rs. 20,592/-. 22. The Ld. CIT(A), however, deleted the addition so made by the AO, observing as under: " The facts of the case, the basis of addition made by the A. O. and the arguments of the AR during the appellate proceedings have been considered. The AR has argued that full details were provided in response to the letters issued by the AO. The AR argued that the assessee is in the business of trading of goods and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the nature of business of the assessee has been accepted, the AO was not justified in holding during the year that the assessee was an entry provider since the nature of business has remained the same and no new facts have been brought on record. The AO was therefore, not justified in making the addition of Rs. 20, 592/- on account of Commission income without bringing any adverse material on record. The addition of Rs. 20,592/- is therefore, not found sustainable and hence directed to be deleted." The Ld. CIT(A) has given a categorical observation that the AO could not find any such discrepancy in the accounts of the assessee warranting rejection of the same. The addition has been made by the AO merely on the basis of suspicion only without any evidence on the file that the assessee was an entry provider only. The AO did not make any effort to verify the veracity of the business transactions by summoning the concerned parties, whereas, the assessee duly explained its nature and manner of business and the same being accepted in the earlier years by the AO. We, therefore do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) on this issue also. This ground is, therefore, also dismis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellate proceedings have been considered. The AR has argued that the concern M/s. Metro Synthetics Prop. Sh. Rajinder Kumar is a regular Income Tax assessee from last many years and has filed the copies of Income Tax Returns for assessment year 2010-11 onwards. The AR further submitted that it is carrying the same business since so many years and the returned income has been accepted by the department in all these previous years. The AR argued that assessment of M/s. Metro Synthetics Prop. Sh. Rajinder Kumar for assessment year 2012-13 was completed u/s 143(3) by DCIT, CC-III, Ludhiana vide order dated 30. 01. 2015, where the income of the concern M/s. Metro Synthetics has been assessed at Rs. 10, 37, 675/- after making an agreed addition of Rs. 4, 00, 000/- to the net profit Rs. 6, 37, 665/- declared on Gross receipts of Rs. 4,79,19, 36, 840/-. Based upon the documents filed by the AR and looking to the past history of the concern where assessments were made under Section 143(3) by the same AO, (viz the DCIT CC-III, Ludhiana) it cannot be said that it is merely an entry provider. There is further merit in the argument of the AR that no adverse inference was drawn by the same AO whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the basis of addition made by the A. O. and the arguments of the AR during the appellate proceedings have been considered. The AR has argued that the concern M/s. Vasu Trading Co. Prop. Sh. Vasu Kalia is a regular Income Tax assessee from last many years and has filed the copies of Income Tax Returns for assessment year 2010-11 onwards. The AR further submitted that it is carrying the same business since so many years and the returned income has been accepted by the department in all these previous years. The AR has argued that assessment of Sh. Vasu Kalia for assessment year 2012-13 was completed u/s 143(3) by ITO Ward-6(3), Ludhiana at an income of Rs. 1, 14, 90, 962 /- against the returned income of Rs. 5, 27, 670/- by making an addition of Rs. 1, 09, 63, 292 /- in the proprietary concern M/s. Vasu Trading Co., however in appeal, the CIT(A)- 3, Ludhiana vide order dated 27. 09. 2016 deleted the addition of Rs. 1, 09, 63, 292/- by holding that transaction were done by the appellant (M/s. Vasu Trading Co.) on principal to principal basis, all transactions for sale and purchases have been done through banking channel and all the vendors with whom assessee (M/s. Vasu Trading Co.) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heets of those parties, there were discrepancies noticed in the amounts. As per AO, the balances in the assessee's books of account did not match with the balance shown as payable/ receivable to the assessee by those parties/concerns in their balance sheets. The AO mentioned that since there were differences in the amounts shown in the balance sheet of the respective parties in the name of the assessee viz-a-viz the amounts shown by the assessee in its Balance Sheet in the name of the these parties, hence the difference was taken as undisclosed income of the assessee. The AO accordingly made addition of Rs. 2, 40, 11,000/- (Rs. 1, 00, 00, 000 + Rs. 1,40, 11, 000/-) to the returned income of the assessee as undisclosed income u/s 68 being part of overall addition of Rs. 69,70, 18, 800/-. 32. The Ld CIT(A), however, deleted the additions so made by the AO observing as under:- " The facts of the case, the basis of addition made by the A. O. and the arguments of the AR during the appellate proceedings have been considered. The AR has argued that there is no difference in the balances and the factual position is that in the books of the assessee the whole amount has been shown un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earing in their balance sheet in the preceding year in the name of the assessee. The party wise position is discussed below: (a) Balances with M/s. Vasu Trading Co.:- The AR submitted that in the books of accounts of the Sh. Vasu Kalia an amount of Rs. 31,13, 05, 000/- has been shown as Loan & Advances to M/s. Shiva Spinfab Pvt. Ltd. which in the books of the assessee M/s. Shiva Spinfab Pvt. Ltd. is shown under two heads as 'Share Application Money received' and 'Sundry Payable' amounting to Rs. 1,40, 11, 000/- and Rs. 29, 72, 94, 000/-respectively. As per AR, the AO has considered only Rs. 29, 72, 94, 000/- shown as Sundry payable and ignored the Share Application Money of Rs. 1, 40,11, 000/- receipt by the assessee M/s. Shiva Spinfab Pvt. Ltd. from Sh. Vasu Kalia. The AR has argued that the Share application money of Rs. 1, 40, 11, 000/- given during the financial year under consideration was out of the bank account of the Sh. Vasu Kalia with Allahabad Bank. The AR has filed the copy of the Bank Statement to substantiate the same. It has also been argued that the Share Application Money is appearing in the Balance Sheet of the assessee M/s. Shiva Spinfab Pvt. Ltd. for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vt. Ltd. under the head Share Application Money received during the year. A perusal of the documents filed shows that no addition on this account is therefore called for. Hence, under the facts and the circumstances of the case, no addition on account of differences of Balances is called for as all the amounts are duly reflected in the Balance sheet of the assessee as well as the Balance sheets of the concerned party. The amounts were paid out of the bank accounts of the parties regularly reflected in their balance sheet under different heads. The arguments of the AR that the AO failed to reconcile the same, is found acceptable and the addition made by the AO is deleted". 33. We have heard the rival contentions and have also gone through the record. The facts and issue involved are identical as discussed above in the case of Vasu Kalia vide Ground No. 3 of the ITA No. 1118/ Chd/ 2017. Since the differences in figures duly explained and reconciled the source of funds proved and some of the balances being old balances, the Ld CIT(A) after duly verifying the accounts of the assessee and other concerns was justified in deleting the impugned additions made by the AO on assumptions an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y an entry provider. As per AO the books of accounts of the assessee were not reliable and hence rejected the same. The AO then estimated the Commission income from business of entry providing @ 0. 50% of the gross receipts of Rs. 882, 95,24, 543/- and computed the commission income at Rs. 4, 41, 47, 622/-. 38. The Ld CIT(A), however, deleted the addition so made by the AO observing as under:- " The facts of the case, the basis of addition made by the A. O. and the arguments of the AR during the appellate proceedings have been considered. The AR has argued that full details were provided in response to the letters issued by the AO. The AR argued that the assessee is in the business of trading of goods and no godown has been maintained by the assessee as the goods purchase from supplier directly deliver to the parties without bringing the goods to the assessee premises. The AR further submitted ihat the assessee is carrying the same business since so many years and is a tegular Income Tax assessee and the returned income has been accepted by the department in all these previous years. The AR has filed the copy of assessment order dated 30.01. 2015 for assessment year 2012-13 pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3/LDH/2014-15. Thus for the reasons mentioned in the above order and the fact that for A.Y. 2012- 13 in the case of the assessee himself the nature of business of the assessee has been accepted by the same AO, she was not justified in holding during the year that the assessee was an entry provider since the nature of business has remained the same and no new facts have been brought on record. The AO was therefore, not justified in making the addition of Rs. 4, 41, 47, 622/- on account of Commission income without bringing any adverse material on record that the business of the assessee during the year was different from the preceding years. The addition of Rs. 4, 41,47, 622 /- is therefore, not found sustainable and hence directed to be deleted". 39. We have heard the rival contentions. The facts and issue involved are identical to that have been discussed vide Ground Nos. 1 & 2 in the case of Vasu Kalia in ITA No. 1118/Chd/2017 and other appeals as discussed above. Our findings given above will mutatis-mutandis apply on this issue also. These grounds of the appeal of the Revenue are accordingly dismissed. 40. Ground No.3 : The Revenue through this ground has agitated the action ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
