2023 (9) TMI 427 - AT - Income Tax

Bogus long term capital gains - exemption u/s 10 (38) - adoption of the rate of 3% as commission income of the assessee - assessee as per his own admission has stated that he used to earn commission income at the rate of 2% to 3 % and AO computed the income of the assessee at the rate of 3% on the above sum. Ld CIT (A) confirmed it - HELD THAT - No infirmity in the order of the lower authorities so far as the adoption of the rate of 3% as commission income of the assessee. Thus, grounds are dismissed. Credit card expenditure - We find that when the income of the assessee has been taxed, he has the source of such expenditure available and therefore, making the addition of the above sum once again, is taxing sources and application of income both, and also amounts to double addition in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, we direct the learned assessing officer to delete the addition made in the hands of the assessee as unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Act. Ground of the appeal is allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Confirmation of assessment orders and commission income.
2. Access to incriminating material and natural justice.
3. Estimation of income based on conjecture.
4. Addition based on trade value of alleged scripts.
5. Restoration of matter and addition without incriminating material.
6. Addition of credit card payments.

Summary:

1. Confirmation of Assessment Orders and Commission Income:
The assessee, involved in providing accommodation entries, filed appeals against the confirmation of assessment orders for A.Y. 2012-13 by the CIT (A). The CIT (A) confirmed the commission income of 3% based on the assessee's admission of earning commission from bogus long-term capital gains transactions. The ITAT found no infirmity in the lower authorities' adoption of the 3% commission rate and dismissed the related grounds of appeal.

2. Access to Incriminating Material and Natural Justice:
The assessee contended that the CIT (A) erred by not allowing access to incriminating material relied upon by the AO, violating principles of natural justice. However, the ITAT upheld the CIT (A)'s decision, noting the assessee's failure to produce any information or make representations.

3. Estimation of Income Based on Conjecture:
The assessee argued that the CIT (A) confirmed the AO's estimation of income without material evidence. The ITAT, referring to the assessee's admission and the evidence gathered, dismissed this ground, supporting the lower authorities' estimation.

4. Addition Based on Trade Value of Alleged Scripts:
The CIT (A) confirmed the addition made by the AO based on the trade value of alleged scripts without establishing the assessee's role. The ITAT found the addition justified, given the assessee's involvement in manipulating share prices and providing accommodation entries.

5. Restoration of Matter and Addition Without Incriminating Material:
The CIT (A) restored the matter to the AO regarding an addition of Rs. 39,80,99,612 and confirmed an addition of Rs. 50,43,02,754 as the assessee's income without incriminating material. The ITAT upheld the CIT (A)'s decision, emphasizing the extensive evidence of money laundering activities.

6. Addition of Credit Card Payments:
The assessee contested the addition of Rs. 2,60,369 for credit card payments. The ITAT directed the AO to delete this addition, recognizing it as a double addition since the income source was already taxed.

Additional Directions:
The ITAT directed the AO to share information about the money laundering activities and involved persons with various authorities, including SEBI, stock exchanges, and the Registrar of Companies, to ensure comprehensive action against the perpetrators.

Conclusion:
The appeals filed by the assessee were partly allowed, with the ITAT upholding most of the lower authorities' decisions and providing additional directions for further regulatory actions.