9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1013X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... flow statement incorporating the entries in the diary in the course of assessment. AO has made various additions in AYs. 2003-04 to 2009-10. Ld.CIT(A) considered all the appeals by the common order and has disposedoff giving partial relief. There is no appeal by Revenue in AY. 2004- 05 and 2006-07 wherein complete relief was given to the assessee, whereas assessee is aggrieved in AYs. 2003-04, 2007-08 & 2008- 09. Since common issues are involved, these three appeals are taken up together. ITA No. 1195/Hyd/2014 (AY. 2003-04): 3. The only issue agitated by assessee in this appeal is with reference to addition of commission of Rs. 5 Lakhs received as an advance in AY. 2003-04 but offered to tax in AY. 2008-09. The grounds are accordingly raised on that issue. In this assessment year, based on the entries in the diary, AO noted that assessee has received an amount of Rs. 5 Lakhs towards commission of a transaction undertaken by assessee and brought the same to tax in this year, despite assessee's contention that the transaction was finalised vide document No. 1163/07 dt. 14-12-2007 and the commission was offered in the FY. 2007-08 relevant to AY. 2008- 09. 4. Ld.CIT(A) after conside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee has indeed received advance and has noted down in the diary but ultimately commission was earned after conclusion of the transaction and accounted for in AY. 2008-09 and therefore, there is no need to tax the amount in AY. 2003-04. He relied on the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Excel Industries Ltd., [358 ITR 295]. 6. Ld. DR however, supported the orders of the AO and CIT(A). 7. After considering the rival contentions and perusing the documents placed on record, we are of the opinion that assessee has correctly declared the commission in AY. 2008-09. Assessee is not maintaining any books of account and has noted down in the diary on the basis of the receipts and payments. Admittedly, the transaction between Shri Phoolchand Singh and others and Shri Sukender Reddy and others regarding 20 acres in Parvathapur village was being negotiated and ultimately finalised in 2007 only by way of final registration. Accordingly, the commission is accounted for by assessee in AY. 2008-09. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case of CIT Vs. Excel Industries Ltd., [358 ITR 295] (supra), has held that 'it is well settled that income tax cann ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stated to have been received from Shri Phoolchand Singh, Shri Rana Pratap Singh and Shri Sukender Reddy (6+10+5 Lakhs) which were added in their hands as 'unexplained expenditure' towards election of assessee. As those amounts were confirmed and as the entry also indicates that the moneys were received from them, Ld.CIT(A) gave relief to the extent of Rs. 21 Lakhs and sustained the balance Rs. 19 Lakhs. Assessee is aggrieved on this amount. 11. Ld. Counsel referring to the entries in the diary placed in paper book, submitted that most of the amounts were received from various people and referred to the entry dt. 26-07-2006, wherein there are receipts from seven people totaling to Rs. 45 Lakhs. The receipts from Shri Muralidhar Reddy, Shri Jaipal Reddy and Shri Yadi Reddy etc., were not taken into account either by the Ld.CIT(A) or by the AO. It was the contention that the entries do indicate that the amounts were received from various people and assessee admitted that he has spent only Rs. 9 Lakhs which was reflected in his statement of accounts. It was submitted that when the expenditure was accepted with the entries in the diaries, the receipts were also to be accepted as recei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted in the diary. 13. In the result, this appeal is allowed. ITA No. 1197/Hyd/2014 (AY. 2008-09): 14. The issue in this assessment year was with reference to unexplained investment in the house constructed by assessee. AO has noted that assessee has constructed a house and has shown an investment of Rs. 15,92,300/-. He asked assessee various details. Since assessee has not maintained any books of account, he could not furnish the necessary vouchers. The building was referred to Valuation Cell who valued the same at Rs. 25,27,165/-. AO has brought the difference of amount of Rs. 9,34,865/- as 'unexplained investment' of the year. 15. Before the Ld.CIT(A), assessee contended that there existed an old house on which only first floor was constructed and that too in the village and so the valuation by the Valuation Officer adopting CPWD rates is not correct. Assessee asked for relief from the valuation relying on the decision of the ITAT in the case of Salma A Mehdi, wherein a deduction of 15% should be allowed on cost of construction arrived at, in view of the higher rates adopted by the CPWD and a further 10% should be allowed towards personal supervision. Ld.CIT(A) however, has o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
