9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 398X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same kind of business. There is no reference of the name of the assessee company in the statement given by such person & document there from. As we have held that commission income is not assessable in the hands of the assessee, its return as per account is accepted and the addition made with respect to commission is deleted. Appeal decides in favour of assessee. - ITA No.6035/Mum/2011 - - - Dated:- 27-7-2012 - SHRI I.P. BANSAL AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, JJ. Appellant by: Shri Rajeev Khandelwal Respondent by: Shri J. Krishnamoorthy ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA (AM): These two appeals pertaining to two different assessees are directed against two separate orders of Ld. CIT(A)-36, Mumbai dt. 10.6.2011 pertaining to a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... above company names I have been giving accommodation bills in the years 2003,2004 and 2005 to various parties like Arihant Corporation, Antrix Diamond, Jaypee Textile, Tirupati Synthetics etc. Gosalia Diamond, Mumbai. All this transaction were made through following banks: 1) A.P. Mahesh Co.Op. Bank Bhuleshwar, Mumbai 2) ABN AMRO bank-Fort, Mumbai 3) Union Bank of India, Kalbadevi, Mumbai The a/c Nos are not in my memory right now, I will furnish in two days time. Again on 17.5.2008, Shri Pravin Jain was confronted on the evidences seized and statement u/as. 132(4) recorded earlier. Q.9. From your statement recorded on the date of search at your resident i.e. on 31.3.2008, I am reproducing the question No. 9 and its answer a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ected by the AO. The AO went on to reject the books of account of the assessee u/s. 145(3) of the Act and proceeded to make assessment in the manner provided in Section 144. The AO estimated the commission/brokerage/consideration from providing the accommodation bills/entries @1% (net of expenses) on the total turnover of Rs. 3,55,08,600/- 5. The assessee took the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) who has reduced the rate of commission from 1% to 0.5%. 6. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued that the very basis of the assessment is without any cogent material evidence brought on record by the AO. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the only basis of framing the assessment is statement of S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which came into existence on 30.3.2007. Being distinct legal entity, the AO ought to have considered its separate status. The CIT(A) himself has observed at page-4 para-8 as under: I have considered the submissions of the appellant and perused the assessment order. I find that the AO has estimated the income by applying the flat rate of 1% and not allowed any expenses as claimed in the P L A/c. It is also seen that the income was estimated by the AO without reference to any cogent material and the estimation was made on the basis of statement of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain and as far as the appellant is concerned, no such statement was ever made by anyone on its behalf. It is further seen from the record that no specific defect was pointed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w that the assessee was actually engaged in the business of providing accommodation bills/entries. Even reference of the statement of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain would not help AO because in his entire statement alongwith name of the concern to whom he has accepted of giving accommodation bills, there is no reference of the name of the assessee company. As nothing has been brought on record to hold that the assessee is engaged in providing accommodation bills, merely on the basis of the statement of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain, which has no bearing/reference to the assessee company, no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee. In fact the entire assessment has been framed on irrelevant facts therefore the assessment made by the AO cannot be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
