9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (5) TMI 1216 - AT - Income TaxDetermination of commission income of the proven accommodation entry operator - CIT (A) s reducing the commission income to 1.04% against the AO s determination @ 2% - HELD THAT - identical issue was considered by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of the brother of the assessee, Anand Kumar Jain 2023 (1) TMI 1254 - ITAT PUNE the rate of commission in the present cases is determined at 0.47%. AO is accordingly directed to follow the direction in the aforesaid ITAT order. Protective addition - HELD THAT - We note that the Ld. CIT(A) has held that the impugned amount can at best be treated as obtained out of assessee s undisclosed commission income which has already been brought to tax. We note that on identical issue, the Tribuna l 2023 (5) TMI 1186 - ITAT DELHI in the case of Sh. Anand Kumar Jain, observed that such receipt form part of accommodation entries and that the AO may verify the same. Following the aforesaid precedent, we direct the AO to verify the same as stated above. Apropos DVO Report - difference in the value of property purchased by assessee and his wife during the year under consideration - immovable property purchased by the appellant was referred for valuation to the DVO - HELD THAT - As CIT(A) has given a finding transaction was not below the circle rate. We note that the ld. CIT(A) has passed a well reasoned order, which does not need interference.
Issues Involved:
1. Confirmation of the rate of commission income at 1.04% by CIT(A). 2. Reduction of the commission income rate from 2% to 1.04% by CIT(A). 3. Deletion of protective additions on account of unexplained cash credits. 4. Deletion of addition based on DVO report regarding property valuation. Summary: 1. Confirmation of the Rate of Commission Income at 1.04% by CIT(A): The assessee challenged the confirmation by CIT(A) of the rate of commission income at 1.04%, arguing that the addition was confirmed by arbitrarily applying the commission rate of 1.04% of the alleged turnover. The Revenue, on the other hand, contested the reduction of the commission income rate from 2% to 1.04% by CIT(A). The Tribunal noted that the facts of the case were identical to those in the case of the assessee's brother, where the rate of commission on accommodation entries was determined as 0.47%. Following the principle of stare decisis, the Tribunal directed that the rate of commission in the present cases be determined at 0.47%. 2. Reduction of the Commission Income Rate from 2% to 1.04% by CIT(A): The Revenue appealed against CIT(A)'s decision to reduce the commission income rate from 2% to 1.04%. The Tribunal observed that CIT(A) had considered the seized tally data and concluded that the average rate of commission received on the total turnover was 1.49%, with the average rate of commission paid being 1.02%. CIT(A) allowed a deduction of 30% of the gross commission receipts as expenses, resulting in a net commission rate of 1.04%. However, the Tribunal followed its earlier decision in the case of the assessee's brother and determined the rate of commission at 0.47%. 3. Deletion of Protective Additions on Account of Unexplained Cash Credits: The Revenue appealed against the deletion of protective additions made by the AO on account of unexplained cash credits. CIT(A) had held that the amounts received by the assessee could be treated as obtained from undisclosed commission income, which had already been brought to tax. The Tribunal followed its earlier decision in the case of the assessee's brother, directing the AO to verify the same and held that the protective addition was a double addition in the hands of the assessee. 4. Deletion of Addition Based on DVO Report Regarding Property Valuation: The AO had added an amount based on the difference in the value of property purchased by the assessee, relying on the inspector's report. CIT(A) found that the inspector's report was not corroborated with any documentary evidence and that the sale consideration paid by the assessee was at the circle rate prescribed by the stamp valuation authority. The Tribunal noted that CIT(A) had given a well-reasoned order and found no reason to interfere with the decision, which accepted the value of the property as per the circle rate. Conclusion: The Tribunal directed the AO to follow the earlier ITAT order in determining the rate of commission at 0.47% and to verify the protective additions. The Tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition based on the property valuation report. All appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue were partly allowed.
|
