2021 (2) TMI 742 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 - credits in the form of NSC commission - On perusal of the reply of the Manager SBM Holenarasipura Branch the AO found that some of the credit entries had a description NSC commission received from Post Master Holenarasipura - HELD THAT - Impugned addition can be examined within the parameters of section 69A of the Act as that would be the proper provision of law applicable in the present case. As rightly contended by the learned DR the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in FIDELITY BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA (P.) LTD. 2018 (7) TMI 1738 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT has not chosen to follow the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Smt. Sarika Jain 2017 (7) TMI 870 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT and has upheld powers of Tribunal in an appeal as encompassing very wide range. On merits on the addition made by the AO addition to the extent which is a credit appearing in the bank account as on 01.03.2010 cannot be sustained as the same is an amount transferred from SBM Doddaballapur Branch. Credit to this extent stands explained and addition to this extent is directed to be deleted. As far as addition being an entry appearing in the bank account on 23.03.2010 being the amount received from C. D. Padmanabha the issue has to be examined afresh by the AO and the assessee has to explain the nature of this credit. Similarly addition of 1, 51, 738/- being the credit appearing in the bank account as on 03.04.2010 is a credit appearing in the books of accounts of the assessee of the previous year relevant to Assessment Year 2010-11 and therefore this addition cannot also be sustained and the same is also directed to be deleted. With regard to other credits the issue is remanded to the AO for considering afresh as the CIT(A) has not adjudicated the issue and the issue requires verification at the AO s end. The AO is directed to afford the assessee right to cross-examine the persons from whom the AO received information and based on which he made the impugned addition. The AO will afford opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Disallowance of 40% of expenditure claimed by the assessee in earning income from LIC - HELD THAT - It is clear from perusal of the conclusion in the CIT(A) s order that he has agreed with the contention of the assessee that the disallowance of expenses is on the higher side. Nevertheless he has sustained the addition for want of supporting evidence filed by the assessee - disallowance of 15% of the expenses claimed by the assessee would be just and reasonable considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the observations of the CIT(A).

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition of &8377; 7,39,381/- made by Revenue authorities.
2. Disallowance of 40% of expenditure claimed by the assessee in earning income from LIC.

Issue 1: Addition of &8377; 7,39,381/-:
The assessee, an individual earning commission as an agent of LIC, filed a return declaring total income of &8377; 3,94,130/- for AY 2010-11. The AO added &8377; 7,39,381/- to the income based on credits described as "NSC commission received from Post Master." The assessee contended that these credits represented maturity proceeds of customers' Savings Certificates, not business income. The CIT(A) directed the AO to summon the Post Master for relevant information. However, the Post Master stated records were unavailable. The Tribunal analyzed the legal provisions and precedents. It held that the addition of &8377; 45,500/- and &8377; 1,51,739/- were unjustified, directing their deletion. The &8377; 65,000/- credit required further examination, and other credits were remanded to the AO for verification. The Tribunal emphasized the right to cross-examine informants.

Issue 2: Disallowance of 40% of Expenditure:
The assessee received &8377; 13,71,779/- as commission from LIC and claimed &8377; 8,86,479/- as expenditure. The AO disallowed 40% of the claimed expenditure without providing specific reasons. The CIT(A) acknowledged the necessity of expenses for earning commission but upheld the disallowance due to lack of supporting evidence. The Tribunal disagreed with the CIT(A)'s approach, finding a 15% disallowance more reasonable. Consequently, the appeal was partially allowed, reducing the disallowance percentage.

In conclusion, the Tribunal addressed the issues of addition of income and disallowance of expenditure meticulously, emphasizing the need for proper examination, adherence to legal provisions, and justification for adjustments made by the Revenue authorities. The judgment provided clarity on the treatment of specific credits and expenses, ensuring a fair and reasonable outcome for the assessee.