9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 1600 - AT - Income TaxAddition on account of undeclared commission income - accommodation entry provider - HELD THAT - The commission income with respect to the transaction entered into by the assessee are required to be taxed in the hands of the assessee company, provided the same have already not been taxed in the hands of Sri SK Jain. We direct the assessee to show before the learned assessing officer that commission income earned by Sri SK Jain on these transactions of the accommodation entries have already been offered by him as income in his hands. If the assessee shows that same have been already taxed in the hands of Sri SK Jain, then commission with respect to the above accommodation entries will not be added in the hands of the assessee as it will amount to double addition. If the assessee fails to show that commission income has been offered by Sri SK Jain on these accommodation entries as income in his hands , then the assessing officer is directed to retain the addition of INR 12,000,000 in the hands of the assessee company. Accordingly ground number 1 and 2 of the appeal of the AO is allowed with above direction. Addition u/s 14A - there being no dividend income earned by the assessee during the year - HELD THAT - As found that assessee has not earned any exempt income during the year and therefore there is no question of making any disallowance u/s 14 A of the income tax act. Therefore we find no infirmity in the order of the learned CIT A in deleting disallowance. Accordingly ground of the appeal of the AO is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition of ?1,20,00,000 on account of undeclared commission income. 2. Deletion of disallowance of ?73,283 under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Deletion of Addition of ?1,20,00,000 on Account of Undeclared Commission Income - Facts of the Case: The assessee, a company engaged in financial services, filed a return declaring a loss of ?73,283. During assessment, it was found that the assessee received share capital and share premium of ?85,00,00,000 from three companies and invested this amount in unquoted shares of three different companies. The Assessing Officer (AO) conducted an investigation and found that these companies were part of a group controlled by Sri Surendra Kumar Jain, used for providing accommodation entries. The AO identified these companies as paper/dummy companies and estimated a commission income of 0.75%, adding ?12,000,000 to the assessee's income. - CIT(A) Findings: The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting that the shareholders and investor companies were assessed to tax, and their assessment orders under Section 143(3) accepted the share capital and share premium as genuine. The CIT(A) argued that any commission income should be added in the hands of the entry operator, not the intermediary companies. - AO's Appeal: The AO argued that the assessee was an intermediary in the chain of accommodation entries and that the commission income should be taxed in the hands of the assessee. The AO contended that the CIT(A) erred in interpreting the commission rates and the acceptance of transactions by other assessing officers. - Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal disagreed with the CIT(A), supporting the AO's detailed investigation. It found the transactions to be accommodation entries and held that the commission income should be taxed in the hands of the assessee unless it was already taxed in the hands of Sri Surendra Kumar Jain. The Tribunal directed the assessee to show that the commission income was offered by Sri Surendra Kumar Jain; otherwise, the addition of ?12,000,000 would be retained. Issue 2: Deletion of Disallowance of ?73,283 Under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act - Facts of the Case: The AO made a disallowance of ?73,283 under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, despite the assessee not earning any dividend or exempt income during the year. - CIT(A) Findings: The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, noting that no exempt income was earned by the assessee during the year. - Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that no disallowance under Section 14A was warranted in the absence of exempt income. Thus, the ground of appeal by the AO was dismissed. Conclusion: The Tribunal partly allowed the AO's appeal, reinstating the addition of ?12,000,000 as undeclared commission income unless already taxed in the hands of Sri Surendra Kumar Jain. It dismissed the AO's appeal regarding the disallowance under Section 14A, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of ?73,283.
|
