TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 810X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the assessee as commission income can be retained. Both the income offered by the assessee in the return of income and addition under section 68 in respect of the same entry of Rs.9 lakhs cannot be retained. Section 115BBE of the Act has been introduced with effect from 01/04/2013, hence, same is not applicable in the instant assessment year under consideration, therefore, even if the said amount is added under section 68 of the Act, same is subject to normal rate of taxation.merely on the ground that services were rendered by the director of the company and not by the company, treating the said commission income as unexplained cash credit, is not justified. CIT(A) has also not identified the expenses claimed by the assessee for earning the said commission income. In the circumstances, we set aside the order of the lower authorities on the issue in dispute and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made under section 68 of the Act. Miscellaneous income and sale of product the assessee failed to provide details of name and address of the parties and, therefore, the CIT(A) sustained the addition - We find that in absence of any documentary evidence, the action ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inst them for their rebuttal while in making additions under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the order is bad in law The CIT(A) ignored this ground, and did not adjudicate, without giving any justification. The appellant prays that the said ground may please be properly adjudicated. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Assessing officer has erred in law and on the facts of the case in disallowing business expenses incurred for earning income and maintaining business operations during the year. The CIT(A) ignored this ground, and did not adjudicate, without giving any justification. The appellant prays that the said ground may please be properly adjudicated. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, CIT(A) erred in mentioning the deletion as Rs.79,530/- instead of Rs.1,79,530/- due to apparent typographical error. The appellant prays that the proper Amount of Rs.1,79,530/- may please be allowed. 2. Before us, the assessee has also raised an additional ground which is reproduced as under:- 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law^ the CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Id Assessing Officer in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, 2020 . 6. We have heard rival submissions on the issue of condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The Hon ble Parliament by way of the The Taxation And Other Laws (Relaxation Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 has extended the time limit for filing of any appeal, reply or other applications, etc. which has been extended till 31st day of the March, 2021. The Hon ble Supreme Court has also extended the limit for filing appeals, etc. during pandemic period. The relevant part of the order of the Hon ble Supreme Court is as under:- 5. Taking into consideration the arguments advanced by learned counsel and the impact of the surge of the virus on public health and adversities faced by litigants in the prevailing conditions, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the M.A. No. 21 of 2022 with the following directions: I. The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itor before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer further noted that an information was received from the Investigation Wing of Income-tax Department, Mumbai that M/s Josh Trading Pvt Ltd was one of the group concern of Shri Pravinkumar Jain, who has engaged in providing accommodation entry in the form of loan. The Assessing Officer also referred to the statement of Shri Pravinkumar Jain, wherein he has specifically mentioned that M/s Joshi Trading Pvt Ltd was managed and controlled by him for the purpose of giving accommodation entries. During the course of the assessment proceedings, in the statement, one of the directors of the assessee company, Shri Nihal Garware confessed that he did not know M/s Joshi Trading Pvt Ltd or their promoters. In view of these facts, the Assessing Officer was of the view that giving interest free loan without knowing each other and that too, without giving any guarantee was unbelievable. Accordingly, he rejected the contention of the assessee and held that mere receiving of amount through banking channel does not prove genuineness of the transaction. He also noted that identity and creditworthiness of the creditor was also not established. Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Officer at the addresss of the cash creditor return unserved and the assessee did not provide any new or current address of the said cash creditor. Therefore, the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to produce the said cash creditor; however, assessee failed to do so. In the circumstances, identity of the creditor is not established. The creditworthiness of the said party was also doubtful. He further submitted that when the assessee is able to furnish affidavit of retraction from Shri Pravinkumar Jain, then assessee could very well produce the directors or promoter of the cash creditor company, M/s Josh Trading Pvt Ltd, which was controlled by Shri Pravinkumar Jain. 13. We have heard the rival submissions of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. The Ld.Counsel of the assessee has merely repeated the arguments which were advanced before the lower authorities. In this case, assessee has shown to have received interest free loan amounting to Rs.85 lakhs from M/s Josh Trading Pvt Ltd. It is undisputed that summons issued under section 131 of the Act by the Assessing Officer was returned unserved and the assessee also failed to produce s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... expenses incurred for earning said income also. 17. The facts in brief qua the issue of commission income of Rs.9,90,000/- received by the assessee from M/s Lifeline Pharma is concerned, the assessee has shown income of Rs.9 lakhs from providing marketing consultancy to M/s Lifeline Pharma. According to the assessee, TDS of Rs.90,000/- was deducted on the said commission income. It was submitted by the assessee that M/s Nihal Garware, director of the assessee company rendered the services corresponding to the commission income and, therefore, finding of the Assessing Officer and Ld.CIT(A) that no services have been provided by the assessee company is not justified. 18. Before us, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee has submitted that firstly, income has already been offered by the assessee for the purpose of income-tax and, thereafter making addition again under the provisions of section 68 of the Act amounts to double addition. 19. We have heard the rival submissions of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. We find that only commission income of Rs.9 lakhs was shown to have been received by the assessee and on that said income, TD ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e been received. The directors of the company had categorically admitted u/s 131 on oath that no business activity was conducted by the company. No detail has been furnished by the appellant during the appeal proceedings as well. In absence of any detail the AO has rightly added the same as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the I.T. Act. This ground of appeal is therefore, treated as dismissed. 21. We have heard rival submissions of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. We find that in absence of any documentary evidence, the action of the Ld.CIT(A) in upholding the addition under section 68 of the Act is justified. However, the corresponding income which has already been declared in the regular return of income needs to be reduced or subtracted from the total income. Thus, the income of Rs.2,62,000/- and Rs.95,000/- will though be assessed under the provisions of section 68 of the Act, there will be no additional tax liability as the incomes assessed under section 68 of the Act are also liable to be taxed at the same rate for the year under consideration. We order accordingly. The grounds No.2 to 4 of the appeal of the assessee are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
