9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 220X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... grounds of appeal. The first issue raised in this appeal is against the confirmation of addition of Rs. 13,12,990/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s.68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called 'the Act'). 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the are that the assessee declared total income of Rs. 7,32,960/- from Turmeric trading activity. Gross profit of Rs. 13,12,990/- was shown from Turmeric trading, which was reduced by deduction towards direct expenses and indirect expenses, resulting into net profit of Rs. 8,40,123/-. The AO observed that the so-called Turmeric trading activity was not supported by any evidence, such as, L.R. Nos., Storage receipts, Freight/Transport receipts and Hamali charges receipts etc. He, therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, made separate addition of Rs. 17,67,880/-. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed these two additions. 5. I have heard the rival submissions and gone through the relevant material on record. The assessee's Profit and loss account has been appended at page 4 of the paper book, which shows Direct income of Rs. 13,12,990.30 (Turmeric trading). Thereafter, there is deduction towards Commission and Hamali with the gross profit coming to Rs. 12,60,590/-. Then, the assessee claimed deduction towards Indirect expenses, namely, Petrol, Professional fees and Vehicle expenses etc. and ultimately came out with a figure of net profit of Rs. 8,40,123/- This amount of Rs. 8.40 lakh was offered by the assessee for taxation. The assessee's case is that such i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssments of about 100 assessees were reopened by various Assessing Officers at Sangli on account of their trading transactions with Sh. Bharat Nilakhe, which have been completed by the respective AOs "without making any addition to the returned income". It has further been stated that all of them substantiated their cases with relevant evidence, which the assessee could not. I am unable to appreciate the view point of the AO in making addition of the gross commission in the hands of the assessee alone on the ground that the transactions with Sh. Bharat Nilakhe were not genuine, when similar transactions undertaken by him with around 100 traders situated at Sangli were accepted by the respective AOs as genuine. Once the transactions relating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs. 11,79,895/- from M/s Apeksha Impex Ltd. which was shown as liability. Since the assessee was a shareholder having 25% shareholding in the company, the AO treated the same as deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act. The assessee contended before the ld. CIT(A) that this amount was actually received in the preceding year and was also subjected to tax during such earlier year and that no fresh advance was received during the year relevant to the assessment year under consideration. The ld. CIT(A) directed the AO to verify his records and if the transaction related to previous year relevant to the assessment year 2009-10, then no addition should be made. 8. Having heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
