2013 (5) TMI 471 - AT - Income Tax

Concealment of commission income - CIT(A) deleted the addition admitting the additional evidence - whether CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition without giving due weightage to the fact that AO confronted assessee with the gross octroi at Rs.38,90,67,651 and going by the evidences gathered, adopted commission on the same at 2% - Held that - After perusing the orders of AO and the CIT (A) and hearing the DR, no reason to differ from the findings of the CIT (A). AO, as rightly pointed out by the CIT (A) might have been confused with the receipts and the payments made by assessee which are independent and separate as one that of gross receipts. Since the facts are examined by the CIT (A) and nothing was brought on record to counter the same by the Revenue, decline to interfere with the orders of the CIT (A). The grounds raised by the Revenue are rejected.

Summary

Issues:
- Addition of Rs.26,21,118 on account of concealment of commission related income.
- Deletion of the addition by CIT (A) without referring the details to AO for verification.
- Discrepancy in the assessment of commission income by AO.

Analysis:
1. The Revenue appealed against the CIT (A) order deleting the addition of Rs.26,21,118 for concealment of commission income. The Revenue contended that the CIT (A) erred in not referring the additional details to the AO for verification as per Rule 46A of the IT Rule 1962. The AO based the addition on the presumption that the assessee did not show full commission income. The CIT (A) considered the facts presented by the assessee, highlighting that the AO misunderstood the receipt and deposit of octroi. The CIT (A) concluded that the addition was made without corroborative evidence, directing the AO to delete the addition.

2. The AO made the addition based on the belief that the assessee did not disclose the full commission income. The CIT (A) clarified that the octroi collected by the assessee was deposited to the BMC through authorized agents. The CIT (A) analyzed the receipts and payments made by the assessee, emphasizing that there was no visible concealment of income. The CIT (A) highlighted that the AO's presumption of gross octroi receipt was incorrect, as evidenced by the actual transactions. The CIT (A) found the addition baseless and directed the AO to delete it.

3. During the appeal hearing, the assessee was not present, and the case proceeded ex-parte. The Revenue contended that the CIT (A) might have been confused with the receipts and payments made by the assessee. However, after reviewing the orders of the AO and the CIT (A), the Tribunal found no reason to differ from the CIT (A)'s findings. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not provide any evidence to counter the CIT (A)'s analysis. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the grounds raised by the Revenue and dismissed the appeal.

In conclusion, the ITAT Mumbai upheld the CIT (A) order, directing the AO to delete the addition of Rs.26,21,118 for concealment of commission income. The Tribunal found that the AO's presumption lacked supporting evidence and that the CIT (A) had correctly analyzed the transactions, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.