9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (10) TMI 1090 - AT - Income TaxEstimation of commission income - 2% OR 0.5% agreed by the assessee - DR stated that the assessee itself in assessment proceedings for the preceding year had admitted to having been earned commission income @ 2% - assessee countered by stating that the 2% commission income was admitted by the assessee to have been earned in a specific transaction of sale of land and not with respect to the other accommodation entry transactions. HELD THAT - We find merit in the contention of assessee that the commission income earned by it on the admitted business of providing accommodation entries was to be estimated by applying at the rate of 0.5% to the total bank deposits of the assessee. Assessee has demonstrated that in the case of other assessee s undertaking identical transactions CIT(A) themselves had held commission income to be earned @ 0.5%. Assessee has also pointed out that the 2% commission rate admitted by the assessee in the preceding year was in relation to specific transaction of accommodation entry entered into with one M/s.Ardor Overseas Pvt.Ltd. DR was unable to controvert the above contentions of the Ld.Counsel for the assessee before us. In view of the same we do not find any justification in the estimation of commission income by applying the rate of 2%. The order of the CIT(A) confirming the estimation of commission income @ 2% by the AO is therefore set aside and the AO is directed to estimate the commission income earned by the assessee by applying the rate of 0.5% to the total bank deposits of the assessee. All the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.
Issues:
Estimation of commission income at 2% by AO vs. Assessee's plea for 0.5% estimation Validity of Ld.CIT(A)'s decision in upholding AO's estimation Applicability of commission rates in similar cases Justification for estimation of commission income Levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C Acceptance of returned income by the appellant Analysis: The appeal before the ITAT Ahmedabad involved a dispute regarding the estimation of commission income by the Assessing Officer (AO) at 2% of total bank deposits, while the assessee contended for a lower rate of 0.5%. The Ld.CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, leading to the primary issue of whether the estimation was justified. The AO's estimation was based on the total deposits in the assessee's bank accounts, resulting in a business income assessment of Rs. 48,70,740. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee clarified that they were engaged in providing accommodation entries, not business transactions, and advocated for the commission income to be estimated at 0.5%. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee highlighted previous ITAT decisions supporting the 0.5% rate for similar cases. The Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the 2% estimation due to the appellant's lack of appearance, disregarding the 0.5% plea. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee argued that the 2% commission rate was specific to a land sale transaction, not accommodation entries. The ITAT found merit in the assessee's contentions, noting that similar cases had been assessed at 0.5% commission rate. The ITAT set aside the Ld.CIT(A)'s decision, directing the AO to estimate the commission income at 0.5% of total bank deposits, allowing all grounds raised by the assessee. The judgment emphasized the importance of justifying the estimation of commission income and considering precedents in similar cases. The decision highlighted the need for consistency in applying commission rates and ensuring proper appreciation of the facts by the tax authorities. Ultimately, the ITAT allowed the appeal, overturning the Ld.CIT(A)'s decision and ruling in favor of the assessee. The judgment also addressed the issue of interest levied under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C, stating that no interest should have been imposed based on the facts of the case. Additionally, the acceptance of the returned income by the appellant was noted, emphasizing the need for accurate assessment based on the nature of transactions conducted by the assessee. In conclusion, the ITAT's decision provided clarity on the estimation of commission income, highlighting the significance of consistency and proper evaluation in tax assessments. The judgment favored the assessee's plea for a lower commission rate, emphasizing the importance of factual accuracy and adherence to established precedents in determining taxable income.
|
