9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 688X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplication was filed. Before us, ld.Sr.DR submitted that the appeals and COs of the Assessee are for two different years, but the issues are identical in both the years except for the amount and, therefore, his submission would also be common to both the years. In view of the aforesaid submission of ld.Sr.DR, we proceed to dispose of the appeals ex-parte qua the assessee on the basis of submissions of ld.Sr.DR and material on record. For the sake of convenience, we proceed to dispose of the appeals and Cos by a consolidated order. We proceed with the facts for AY 2007-08. 3. First, we take up the appeal, i.e. Revenue's appeal in ITA No.2649/Ahd/2014 for AY 2007-08 as a lead case. 3.1. The relevant facts as culled out from the materials on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ank account represent the bogus sales claimed to have been made to various parties by assessee. AO also noticed that while finalizing the assessment order for AY 2009-10 in assessee's case on similar facts and circumstances, commission income received by the assessee from issuance of bogus bills was calculated @ 5% of the total bills, AO therefore following similar method as followed by the AO in AY 2009-10, computed the commission income received by the assessee for the impugned year on issue of bogus bills at 5% (5% of Rs. 4,06,85,237/-) and worked out the commission income at Rs. 20,34,261 and made its addition. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, assessee carried the matter before the ld.CIT(A), who granted partial relief vide order dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in dispute is the quantum of commission received by the appellant. In view of the above facts and circumstances, it cannot be denied that the appellant would have received commission from Shri Madanlal L.Chandak for letting him to use his name and bank account for the purpose of issuing bogus bills and also from the parties who were directly getting bogus bills from the appellant. In the case of Shri Madanlal L.Chandak, the Assessing Officer has estimated a commission @ 2% of the amount received in the said bank account which has been reduced to 1% by the CIT(A). Even if not more, atleast equal share would have been definitely received by the appellant for the bogus bills issued with the help of Shri Madanlal L.Chandak. So, it would be very ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome of Rs. 4,06,852/- (for AY 2008-09 of Rs. 33,89,890/-) for the assessment year 2007-08. The learned CIT(A) has not considered the fact that the appellant has received hardly Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 3,000/- as commission. It is therefore submitted that the said order be held as bad in law and be cancelled. It is submitted that it be so held now. 2. The appellant also requests you to waive the income tax amount of Rs. 1,76,400/- (for AY 2008-09 Rs. 24,02,820/-) and interest, penalty and any other levied amount." 5. Before us, at the outset, ld.Sr.DR was fair enough to submit that on identical facts in the case of ACIT vs. Madanlal L. Chandak (Shah) in IT(ss)A Nos.423 to 425/Ahd/2012 with CO Nos.205 to 207/Ahd/2012 for AYs 2007-08, 2008-0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the statement recorded by the Department of Shri Dharmendra Pandya, proprietor of Vishal Traders. The assessee is an individual and was not filing any return of income claiming that he has no taxable income. The claim of the assessee before the Revenue authorities was that no incriminating material was found during the course of search. The assessee has also claimed that no investment in movable and immovable properties was found by the department, as a result of search. The assessee claimed that he has not issued any bogus bills to any party and no cash was found or seized at the time of search, and that no bank account was maintained by the assessee, and nothing was found during the course of search. However, we find that the CIT(A) has g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the COs of the assessee are partly allowed." 6.1. Considering the fact that the issue in the present case is identical that of Madanlal L.Chandak (Shah)[supra] and respectfully following the decision of Coordinate Bench and for similar reasons, we direct the addition made on account of commission income from issuance of bogus bills be restricted to Rs. 2 lacs as against Rs. 4,06,852/- that were sustained by the ld.CIT(A) for AY 2007-08. 6.2. Since facts are identical for AY 2008-09, applying the same method as stated hereinabove, the addition is restricted to Rs. 17 lacs as against Rs. 33,89,890/- sustained by the ld.CIT(A) for AY 2008-09. Thus, grounds of the Revenue for both the years are dismissed and Cross Objections of Assessee are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
