2013 (12) TMI 1255 - HC - Income Tax

Unexplained commission paid Held that - The Assessing officer has accepted the payment of commission by Santosh Kumar Agarwal - When the amount has already been assessed in his hands, then the same amount cannot be added in the hands of the assessee to avoid double taxation There is no justification for making the addition of Rs.16,40,000/- in the hands of the assessee. Unexplained payment - Held that - The ITAT found that M/s. Mohan Lal Jain & Sons was having transaction with Sri Santosh Kumar Agrawal only. He was not having any transaction with the assessee firm. M/s. Mohan Lal Jain & Sons have repeatedly asked Sri Santosh Kumar Agarwal, whose wife was a partner in the assessee firm, for making the payment, and Sri Santosh Kumar Agrawal has also confirmed it. Net Profit rate - Held that - Profit @ 8 % was justified and accordingly an addition of Rs. Rs.9,649/- was confirmed, and relief of Rs.1,11,149/- was granted - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Justification of upholding relief on unexplained commission paid
2. Justification of upholding relief on unexplained payment
3. Justification of upholding relief by applying N.P. rate instead of entire suppressed receipt

Analysis:
1. The High Court addressed the first issue concerning the justification of upholding relief on unexplained commission paid. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) observed that the impugned papers were found at the residential premises of a third party, Sh. Santosh Kumar Agrawal, not associated with the assessee firm. The entries were in his handwriting, and he confirmed the transactions. The Assessing Officer had accepted the payment of commission in his assessment, thus preventing double taxation. Consequently, the ITAT found no justification for adding Rs.16,40,000 in the hands of the assessee, leading to the dismissal of this appeal.

2. Regarding the second issue of upholding relief on unexplained payment, the ITAT noted that M/s. Mohan Lal Jain & Sons solely transacted with Sri Santosh Kumar Agrawal, not the assessee firm. Sri Santosh Kumar Agrawal's involvement in the payments was confirmed, and the absence of any direct transaction with the assessee firm was established. This finding contributed to the dismissal of the appeal concerning the addition of Rs.8,74,780.

3. Lastly, the third issue revolved around justifying the relief granted by applying an 8% Net Profit rate instead of the entire suppressed receipt amount. The ITAT deemed the 8% profit rate as reasonable, resulting in a confirmed addition of Rs.9,649 and a granted relief of Rs.1,11,149. Upon reviewing the judgments of the Assessing Officer, CIT (Appeals), and ITAT, the High Court concluded that none of the grounds raised in the appeal presented substantial questions of law for consideration, leading to the dismissal of the appeal in its entirety.