9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 371X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount of income of ₹ 1,92,00,000/- earned by it in its return of income. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and legal position on the issue, we are in full agreement with the A.O. that the assessee had concealed particulars of income of ₹ 1,92,00,000/- on account of brokerage earned and received by it by not offering the same as its taxable income in the return of income furnished for A.Y. 2008-09. Therefore, the assessee was liable for penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act for concealment of its income to the tune of ₹ 1,92,00,000/- as brokerage income. - Decided against assessee. - I.T.A. No. 564/Ind/2014 - - - Dated:- 20-5-2016 - Shri D. T. Garasia, Judicial Member And Shri B. C. Meena, Acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perty was completed/materialized. The assessee had received brokerage of ₹ 1,92,00,000/- but had not shown this income for taxation. When the assessee was asked to explain as to why the receipt of brokerage/commission was not offered for tax, it was submitted before the AO that the assessee had done the work on behalf of its sister concern M/s. Sandhya Prakash Limited as per the MOU signed between both the parties. It was stated that the assessee company M/s. DSP Finprint Limited had the required manpower and experience in such type of brokerage business and stated that the work was actually done by the assessee on behalf of its sister-concern and the brokerage received was fully passed on to M/s. Sandhya Prakash Limited. The AO did n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the income tax authorities. (Webster New International Dictionary) - Extract from P Ramnatha Aiyar The Major Law Lexicon, 4th Edition, pg. 1353. In CIT vs Indian Metal Ferro Alloys Ltd. 211ITR 35 (Orr.), it was held - The expressions 'has concealed the particulars of income' and has furnished inaccurate particulars of income have not been defined either in section 271(1)(c) or elsewhere in the Act. One thing is certain that these two circumstances are not identical in detail although they may lead to the same effect, namely, keeping off a certain portion of income. The former is direct and the letter may be indirect in its execution. The offence of concealment is a direct attempt to hide an item of income or a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch evidence was brought on record. There is no evidence of deliberate act of concealment. Thus, there cannot be a concealment of income. The appellant has challenged the addition before the Hon'ble High Court. The issue is as to who is the real owner of income. This issue is debatable. Assessee has given evidences to justify that the income belonged to SPL. The money has passed on to SPL. This money has never returned back to the appellant. It cannot be said that the transaction was a camouflaged transaction. There was no fraud established by the department. The real owner of income was SPL. SPL has offered the income. Same has not been doubted. Department, itself has not deleted the addition in hands of SPL. Thus, the department is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... performed the job and rendered the services to these five persons for materializing the said transaction. The assessee received brokerage of ₹ 1,92,00,000/- i.e. ₹ 38,40,000/- by cheque on 14.08.2011 from each of the seller and the amount was credited in the bank account of the assessee. Thus, the assessee has actually rendered the services and for rendering those services, the assessee had earned brokerage/commission of ₹ 1,92,00,000/-. Hence, it was an income of the assessee earned by it during the previous year relevant to A.Y. 2008-09. As observed by the Hon'ble ITAT, mere entering of MOU between the assessee and its sister-concern M/s Sandhya Prakash Ltd. would not allow the assessee to divert its liability of tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
