9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 11 - AT - Income TaxAddition on account of unexplained total deposits with the bank - AO also added the commission income on account of transactions in the Syndicate Bank Account - HELD THAT - Protective addition in the hands of Dharmender Kumar was restricted to the commission at 0.37% on the net credits for A.Y. 2010-11. Therefore, there is no credible basis for treating the entire turnover as the income of the assessee for which the assessee has filed additional evidence before the CIT(A) which were taken cognizance by the CIT(A). CIT(A) has rightly held that in the subsequent scrutiny assessment orders no adverse view has been taken on the transaction in the bank account and therefore, CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition As regards direction given to the Assessing Officer to compute the commission income at 0.37% on the total transactions in bank account of M/s. Pride Trade Agency and M/s Sidh Trading Company the CIT(A) has rightly held that the assessee has not shown any nexus between the cash withdrawal and cash deposited on later dates and has not accepted the claim of the assessee and worked out commission to the extent of ₹ 1,23,712/-. - Decided against revenue
Issues:
- Appeal against order dated 29.07.2016 by Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals]-13, New Delhi for Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2011-12 - Grounds of appeal: Unexplained total deposits with the bank, admission of additional evidences under Rule 46-A of the I.T. Act, 1961 Analysis: 1. The appeals were filed by the Revenue challenging the order by the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals]-13 for Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2011-12. The main grounds of appeal were related to unexplained total deposits with the bank and the admission of additional evidences under Rule 46-A of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment for A.Y. 2008-09 based on information that the assessee was the real owner of bank accounts in the names of two companies. The Assessing Officer treated the deposits in these accounts as unexplained credits and added a significant sum to the assessee's income. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal. 3. The Department argued that the assessee controlled the business concerns in the name of an employee, arranged funds for the business, and paid commission to the employee. As the assessee failed to provide confirmation to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the creditors, the Assessing Officer added the unexplained cash credits to the assessee's income. 4. The AR relied on previous years' assessments and court judgments to support their case. The CIT(A) considered the submissions and admitted additional evidence. The CIT(A) noted discrepancies in the treatment of similar cases by the Department in subsequent assessments and deleted the addition of unexplained credits in the bank accounts. 5. The CIT(A) found no credible basis to treat the entire turnover as the assessee's income. The addition of commission income was also revised based on the net profit rate from disclosed business transactions. The CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to compute the commission income at a specific rate and made adjustments accordingly. 6. The CIT(A) dismissed the Revenue's appeal for A.Y. 2008-09, as the protective addition in another case was restricted to commission income. The same finding applied to the appeal for A.Y. 2011-12, leading to the dismissal of both appeals. 7. In conclusion, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed based on the CIT(A)'s detailed analysis and findings, which highlighted inconsistencies in the treatment of similar cases and directed specific computations for commission income. The judgment was pronounced on 19th November 2019.
|
