2016 (10) TMI 1179 - AT - Income Tax

Estimation of commission income - Accommodation bills to certain parties - Held that - There cannot be a fixed criteria to adopt as to at what rate the commission income in such cases can be adopted for turnover, however, considering the facts of the case and submissions of the A.R., in our view, the estimation of commission income at the rate of 3% in the absence of any evidence, any calculation or other basis or any example of a similarly placed case seems to be on higher side. The assessee, on the other hand, has supported its case while providing all the details including the actual amount of the turnover and the actual amount received by the assessee and the AO has not pointed out any peculiar point on the basis of which the calculation and income offered by the assessee can be faulted with. We accordingly restrict the income offered from the accommodation bills turnover at the rate of 1% as against 3% estimated by the AO. Before parting, it is made clear that our above observations will not have any bearing in any other case as such type of cases have to be decided on their own merits. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Estimation of profit from accommodation turnover at 3% by AO instead of 1% declared by the assessee.

Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding the estimation of profit from accommodation turnover for the assessment year 2010-11. The assessee declared the profit at the rate of 1% of the turnover of accommodation bills, but the Assessing Officer (AO) estimated it at 3%. The dispute centered around the difference in the estimation of profit percentage, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.

2. During a survey under section 133A of the Income Tax Act, it was found that the assessee provided accommodation bills along with trading in goods. The AO estimated the profit at 3% of the turnover, whereas the assessee declared it at 1%. The assessee contended that the 3% estimation was excessive, and the CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision. The Tribunal noted that the genuine turnover was significantly lower than the total turnover, and the assessee had declared the income from accommodation bills without claiming any expenses or sub-commission.

3. The Tribunal considered the submissions of the assessee, including references to previous Tribunal decisions, and found that the estimation of profit at 3% was unjustified. Despite the absence of a fixed criteria for determining commission income in such cases, the Tribunal concluded that the 1% rate declared by the assessee was more reasonable. The Tribunal highlighted that the AO did not provide any specific basis for faulting the assessee's calculation and income offered. Therefore, the Tribunal restricted the income from accommodation bills turnover to 1% instead of the 3% estimated by the AO, allowing the appeal of the assessee.

4. The Tribunal emphasized that its decision in this case should not be applied as a precedent for other cases, as each case must be evaluated based on its own merits. By considering the facts presented, the Tribunal concluded that the AO's estimation at 3% was on the higher side without sufficient evidence or basis, while the assessee's declaration at 1% was adequately supported. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee and pronounced the order in favor of the assessee on 19.10.2016.