9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1882X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vidence in support of its contention that he was acting on behalf of others, when participating in the bid, the only reasonable presumption that can be drawn is that assessee himself was doing business. In such a situation, assessee having failed to produce any books of accounts, in our opinion,AO was left with no choice but to make an estimate of income, based on value of purchases made by the assessee. Estimation of 3.5% was in our opinion reasonable. No doubt Assessing Officer has cited Section 69A of the Act while making the addition. However this by itself does not make the addition by estimating the income at 3.5% of the purchase turnover bad in law. Even dehorse the said Section, the addition was very much fair and in accordance with law. We do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). - Decided against assessee. - I.T.A. No.583/CHNY/2017 /Assessment year : 2013-2014. - - - Dated:- 28-2-2018 - Shri Abraham P.George And Shri George Mathan, JJ. Appellant by: Shri. R. Sivaraman, Advocate Respondent by: Ms. S. Vijayaprabha, IRS, JCIT. ORDER Abraham P. George, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 40/-. In such return, assessee had claimed refund of @17,45,898/- being tax collected at source on old gold purchased through jewellery auction. Ld. Assessing Officer required the assessee to reconcile the TDS as per Form No.26AS with the income admitted in the profit and loss account. In reply, assessee stated that he was participating in gold auction for gold commission agents, goldsmiths, traders and their representatives, on their behalf. As per the assessee, when financial institutions auctioned jewellery, he bidded on behalf of such gold commission agents, goldsmiths, traders etc., Contention of the assessee was that he paid the bid amount and took delivery of the old gold using the funds given by such persons. As per the assessee, the gold once received was given it to the actual buyers. As per the assessee, the auctioneers collected tax from him, considering him to be the purchaser of the gold and this was a reason why such tax collection was reflected in form No.26A. Further, as per the assessee, he was entitled only for a commission of Rupees one thousand only, per kilogram of gold purchased. In other words, as per the assessee, he was representing the parties who require ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - 4) The assessee is not eligible to claim refund, because the TCS reflected in 26AS belonged to the purchaser of different parties. 5)The assessee is claiming that he is a commission agent and received _94,000/- as commission for the FY, 12-13 from the old gold auction, but the assessee admitted bogus commission receipts estimated @ 1% for the unclaimed receipt reported in his 26AS, ₹ 23,32,17,428/- and illegally claimed and received the refund of ₹ 17,45,900/-- from the department 6)Since the refund received by the assessee for the TCS reported in his account which is not related to the assessee's income, the refund should be reversed and collected from the assessee. Therefore, the amount estimated to the extent of refund received, ₹ 58,15,990/-is to . be added as unaccounted income U/S 69A of the Income-Tax Act 1961. Also, Rs, 94,000/- commission received during the Financial Year which is not reported by the assessee in the return of income is to be added as unaccounted income u/s 69A of the Income-Tax Act 1961 . 5. Aggrieved, assessee moved in appeal before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Argument of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that he gets a commission of 50 paise to one rupee per gram of gold purchases made by the parties on whose behalf he participated in the auction. It was offered as income only to claim credit of TCS against the tax chargeable on that income. Another absurdity in this claim is that income offered is equivalent to tax credit sought against that income which in any case does not belong to him for the reasons stated above. In fact, the appellant did not produce any evidence in support of actual quantum of commission earned from this business Under these circumstances, I am convinced that the AO has rightly estimated income corresponding to refund already paid and income so estimated clubbed with income already offered works out to 3.5% of purchases as proposed by the AO during the assessment proceedings. Accordingly the addition made is upheld and grounds are dismissed . 7. Now before us, the ld. AR strongly assailing the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) reiterated the contentions taken by the assessee before the lower authorities. Further, according to him, Section 69A of the Act could be applied only where assessee was found to be the owner of any mon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
