9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1225X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cantile systems". The question was decided in favour of the revenue and against assessee - IT APPEAL NO. 396 (CHD.) OF 2010 - - - Dated:- 30-6-2015 - BHAVNESH SAINI AND T.R. SOOD, JJ. For The Appellant : Anup Kumar Jain For The Respondent : Manjit Singh ORDER Bhavnesh Saini, Judicial Member - This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(Appeals)-I Ludhiana dated 18.02.2010 for assessment year 2006-07. 2. Earlier, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed in default. However, the Miscellaneous Application of the assessee was allowed and appeal was restored for hearing on merits. 3. The assessee in the present appeal challenged the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) in confirming the addition of ₹ 70,09,804/- on account of violation of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act and in not admitting the additional evidence. 4. Briefly the facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer, on perusal of the TDS certificate attached with the return of income found that assessee made a claim of refund of ₹ 70,468/-. The return of income and balance sheet revealed that assessee firm is engaged in the business of transportation i.e. to book ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng Officer in his letter and assessee never used any bilty for any purpose. The assessee did not receive freight payment and earned only commission income. The assessee further explained that it has to pass the memorandum entries with regard to the freight received as well as freight paid on the basis of TDS certificate. Otherwise penalty under section 44AB may be levied if assessee prepare accounts only on the basis of commission income. The assessee further filed reply in which more or less same facts were reiterated and assessee relied upon certain decisions in support of the contention that it was acting as commission agent only. 7. The Assessing Officer considering the material on record in the light of the reply of the assessee noted that the perusal of the books of account shows that assessee had debited as well as credited payments in its books of account under two accounts namely 'Freight received' and 'Freight paid' which shows that assessee has accounted for the freight received from his principal as well as payments to sub-contractors. The Assessing Officer also noted that assessee has claimed tax deducted at source by its principal. As per the provis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of additional evidence stating that due to paucity of time same could not be filed. The reason stated is very general and without pinpointing as to how the assessee's case is covered under any of the circumstances as enumerated in Rule 46A. Therefore, the request of the appellant for admission of additional evidence is rejected. I find that assessee has itself shown the receipts of the freights and the same has been credited to P L account to the tune of ₹ 81,10,852/-. Also, the assessee has paid a sum of ₹ 80,23,520/- for hiring the trucks as per its books of account. The assessee's argument that it had earned only commission income is self-contradictory in view of these facts. If the appellant was only a commission agent then only the commission income should have been shown in its books of account. Also, the argument of the Id. AR that it had issued no GR/bilty for the trucks arranged through is of no consequence as the assessees has itself shown the receipts and payments of freight. The assertion of the Assessing Officer that payments exceeding ₹ 20,000/- have been made has not been contradicted. Therefore, the provisions of section 194C of the Act are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee wanted ld. CIT(Appeals) to admit this additional evidence to clarify that they have taken vehicles through assessee and those parties have issued bility. However, assessee was not able to make out any case for admission of this additional evidence under Rule 46A of the IT Rules. Though the assessee has raised a ground of appeal in the present appeal challenging the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) in not admitting additional evidence, however, ld. counsel for the assessee, during the course of arguments, did not argue on this point and has not argued why this additional evidence should be admitted. Since the record of the assessee itself shows that assessee acted as contractor and made entries in the books of account of freight received and freight paid which was also admitted before the authorities below, therefore, assessee could not be allowed to take a contrary stand of taking the plea of acting only as commission agent. Therefore, ld. CIT(Appeals) was justified in refusing to admit additional evidence. The ld. counsel for the assessee relied upon decision of the Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. United Rice Land Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 594. In this case, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
