9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 1247X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual doing business of cheque discounting, cheques collection and similar other activities. There was a search u/s. 132 of the IT Act conducted on 11.10.2007. During the course of search various books of accounts and documents were seized from the premises of the assessee. On issue of notice u/s. 153A of the Act calling for the return of income, the assessee filed return for all the three years on 31.3.2009 declaring a total income of Rs.15,56,687/- ; Rs,29,42,100/-; and Rs.48,09,920/- respectively. Notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) were issued for all the years. The assessee and his representative were heard by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer, on perusal of the seized mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ling rate for cheque collection was between 0.1% and 0.5% and that in the case of cheque discounting 18% is charged. Hence in these circumstances, the Assessing Officer thought it fit to adopt 0.25% on the turnover, taking into account the average of commission being charged by the assessee. Thus the difference of Rs.4,48,731/-; Rs.10,17,768/- and Rs.7,34,279/- respectively, were brought to tax as suppressed commission of the assessee. Aggrieved by these orders of the Assessing Officer, the assessee moved the matter in appeal before the first appellate authority, before whom the following submissions were made by the assessee : "2. Inter alia, the appellant is engaged in the business of cheque discounting and cheque facilities. 3. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urse of search, no evidence was found in respect of additional investments/assets, to cover the extra income sought to be assessed/taxed by the Assessing Officer. 12. The additions to income for all the years have been made without basis and only in adhoc manner. No basis is shown to arrive at the figure of 0.25% and even the calculation is not correct. 13. In Ravinder Kumar v. DCIT (33 SOT 251) Delhi, it was held that any addition sought to be made by Assessing Officer must be corroborated either by material found during action or by material subsequently brought on record by the Assessing Officer. 14. In view of the above, the appellant submits that the additions made by Assessing Officer on account of the commission/receipts be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l raised before us by the assessee are as under : i) In any case and without prejudice, the order passed in the absence of cross examination of parties/reports based on which assessment was done makes the order totally bad in law and is liable to be quashed. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) instead of quashing the order has erred in confirming the same. ii) Without prejudice, the appellant submits that the lower authority have erred in not accepting the income declared by the appellant. On proper appreciation of facts of the case, the income offered by the appellant being correct is to be accepted. iii) The learned Assessing Officer has erred in assessing the income at Rs.20,05,420/Rs.39,59,871/55,42,190, adopting 0. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
