9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (12) TMI 132 - AT - Income TaxAddition of commission income - undisclosed deposits in bank account - onus to prove - contention of assessee that he received amount partly vide three cheques out of which he received part for year under consideration as commission and remaining paid to said two sellers equally through banking channel - CIT(A) confirmed the view of AO in finding the affidavit filed by the assessee is self serving and not supported by any proof, signatures on kachha receipts were not tallied with the signature of sale deed and failure of the assessee to produce the said two persons for examination - HELD THAT - As it evident from the assessment order the AO deputed his Inspector to issue summons u/s. 131 of the Act, but however, the said summons could not be served for want of correct address. Further, before the CIT(A) an affidavit and also copy of receipt containing alleged signatures of the said two persons for filed as additional evidences against which the CIT(A) sought remand report from the AO. As discussed above in the remand report the AO doubted the signatures as verified from kachha receipts as well as signatures on sale deed dated 07-03-2009 - CIT(A) was of the opinion, no steps were taken to produce the said persons at least in the remand proceedings before the AO and the assessee failed to bring on record in support of his claim that an amount being the addition made in the year under consideration was paid to two sellers but not his income by way of commission. Therefore, no explanation to the satisfaction of both the authorities below were furnished even before this Tribunal and we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) impugned, hence, it is justified. Thus, the sole ground raised by the assessee fails and is dismissed.
Issues involved:
The judgment involves appeals filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09. Issue 1: Addition on account of commission income for A.Y. 2007-08 The assessee challenged the action of CIT(A) in confirming the addition made by the AO on account of commission income. The AO added Rs. 6,00,000 to the total income of the assessee based on the sale of property and commission received. The CIT(A) upheld the addition after considering evidence and explanations provided by the assessee. The assessee derived income from commission and agriculture. The AO issued a notice u/s. 148 as no return of income was filed for A.Y. 2007-08. The assessee filed a return declaring income, and during the assessment proceedings, was asked to produce various details including bank statements and proof of deductions. The AO added Rs. 6,00,000 to the total income of the assessee based on commission received for the sale of a property. The CIT(A) considered additional evidence provided by the assessee, including receipts endorsed by the sellers. However, the CIT(A) found the evidence to be self-serving and not supported by proof. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO, stating that the appellant failed to produce the concerned persons for verification and did not provide satisfactory explanations for the transactions. The AO attempted to verify the transactions by issuing summons, but they could not be served due to incorrect addresses. The assessee claimed that the burden of verification lay with the AO. The CIT(A) noted that no steps were taken to produce the concerned persons for verification, and the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the claim that the added amount was paid to the sellers and not received as commission. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that no satisfactory explanation was provided by the assessee. The appeal challenging the addition on account of commission income for A.Y. 2007-08 was dismissed. Issue 2: Similarity in facts for A.Y. 2008-09 The facts for A.Y. 2008-09 were found to be identical to A.Y. 2007-08, with the only difference being the amount involved. The Tribunal applied the findings from the appeal for A.Y. 2007-08 to the appeal for A.Y. 2008-09 and dismissed the assessee's appeal. In conclusion, both appeals of the assessee were dismissed based on the findings for A.Y. 2007-08, as the facts were similar for A.Y. 2008-09 as well.
|
