9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 353X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee and assessee failed to justify this increase – before CIT(A) also assessee was not able to satisfy him by way of producing supporting evidence though CIT(A) gave ample opportunity for doing this - assessee failed to substantiate – this, there is no reason to interfere in the order of the CIT(A) – Decided against Assessee. Addition u/s 69D of the Act - Income from undisclosed sources – Transactions on loose papers found – Held that:- CIT(A) rightly held that AO was not justified in invoking the provisions of section 69D in this case – the transactions recorded in the loose papers in the names of Sailesh, M Zala, Harish etc were not recorded in the books of accounts and in the statements recorded at the time of survey also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd during survey, out of the addition of Rs. 3,16,267/- made by the Ld. AO invoking the provisions of sec. 69D of the Act. The addition of Rs. 1,60,000/- is contrary to facts and bad in law and therefore is prayed to be deleted. 3. First ground relates to addition of Rs. 3,42,094/- 1/10th of total commission paid to various parties. 4. AO during the assessment proceedings observed that during the year under appeal commission expenses of Rs. 34,20,9047/- were 41% of the receipts as compared to commission expenses of Rs. 14,67,880/- in the immediately preceding year which were 30% of receipts. When assessee was asked to explain, the submission of the assessee was that it earned commission by providing credit cards, sim of mobile phones ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dverse was found in respect of commission expenses. He also submitted that one of the reasons given by AO for making this disallowance was that profit shown by the assessee during the year under appeal as percentage of total turn-over has decreased by 0.86%, therefore he offered that this disallowance may be restricted to the extent of 1% of turn-over. Ld. DR on the other hand relied on the orders of lower authorities and submitted that there was big rise in the commission payment in comparison to receipts of the assessee and assessee has failed to produce supporting evidence in support of this commission payments despite the fact that Ld. CIT(A) gave opportunity to the assessee to produce the same twice. Therefore no further relief is call ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... N.K. Mahesh 2.12.2000 Rs. 1,00,000/- 5. Rakesh Mishra 23.2.2001 Rs. 42,000/- 6. Shailesh 18.02.2001 Rs. 9,267/- 7. Shailesh 22.03.2001 Rs. 15,000/- AO referred to reply by Shri Ashwinhbhai H Patel to question no.10 of his statement dated 24-01-2002 and question no. 2 of his statement dated 28- 01-2002 at the time of survey u/s. 133A and held that assessee-company was in the habit of borrowing amounts on hundi. AO made an addition of Rs. 3,16,267/- u/s. 69D. 11. Ld. CIT(A) after taking into consideration this submission of the assessee which h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
