2010 (7) TMI 785 - HC - Income Tax

Share dealing transactions - Addition on account of unaccounted commission earned by the assessee on share dealing transactions - Claim of the assessee that it was receiving only 1.50% commission on long term transactions and 0.30% commission on total transactions was duly considered Held that - assessee itself surrendered additional income was also taken into account which fact itself shows that the initial declaration of income of the assessee was not genuine. In absence of genuineness of the stand of the assessee, the Tribunal held that rate of 0.75% to the gross turnover would be a fair assessment, appeal is dismissed

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of claim without material evidence
2. Ignoring books of accounts for commission income
3. Legality of impugned orders

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the rejection of the claim without substantial evidence. The Assessing Officer initially added Rs. 66,62,980 as unaccounted commission earned by the assessee on share dealing transactions. The CIT (A) deleted this addition, but the Tribunal restored it. The Tribunal found discrepancies in the assessee's explanations and the lack of evidence to support the claimed commission rates. The Tribunal concluded that the initial income declaration was not genuine, leading to the application of a 2% rate on the total turnover, resulting in the addition of Rs. 66,62,980.

2. The issue revolved around the rate of commission charged by the assessee and the breakdown of turnover between long-term and short-term transactions. The Tribunal noted inconsistencies in the assessee's statements regarding commission rates and the lack of evidence to substantiate the claimed rates. Despite the assessee's varying claims, the Tribunal estimated a commission rate of 0.75% to compute the income, overturning the CIT (A)'s decision. The Tribunal emphasized the absence of concrete evidence to support the claimed commission rates, leading to the revised computation of income.

3. The appellant contended that the addition of unaccounted commission was baseless and that the books of accounts were disregarded unjustly. However, the Tribunal considered the director's statement, the modus operandi of the assessee, and the inconsistencies in the commission rates claimed by the assessee. The Tribunal found the initial income declaration to be questionable, leading to the determination of a fair 0.75% commission rate on the gross turnover. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that no substantial question of law arose, and upheld the assessment of income based on the circumstances of the case.