9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 11X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een taken on the transaction in the bank account and therefore, CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition As regards direction given to the Assessing Officer to compute the commission income at 0.37% on the total transactions in bank account of M/s. Pride Trade Agency and M/s Sidh Trading Company the CIT(A) has rightly held that the assessee has not shown any nexus between the cash withdrawal and cash deposited on later dates and has not accepted the claim of the assessee and worked out commission to the extent of ₹ 1,23,712/-. - Decided against revenue - I.T.A. Nos. 5392 & 5393/DEL/2016 (Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2011-12) - - - Dated:- 19-11-2019 - MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O. P. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12. (i). Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the law, the Ld. CIT(Appeal) erred in not appreciating the facts of the case properly? (ii). Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the law, the Ld. CIT (Appeal) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 38,80,43,254/- on account of unexplained total deposits with the bank. (iii) The CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidences without giving sufficient opportunity to the Assessing Officer under Rule 46-A of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. These two appeals are identical, therefore, we are taking brief facts for A.Y. 2008-09. 4. The assessee filed his return ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessment order the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 6. The Ld. DR submitted that the assessee found the different units under the business one in the names of M/s. Sidh Trading Agency and other in the name of M/s. Pride Trading Agency. The whole business concerns was placed in capacity of proprietorship concern of Shri Dharmender Kumar, his employee and as far as the question of fund necessary for running the business is concerned the same was arranged by the assessee. The other significant aspect of the case is that Shri Dharmender was his employee he was paid for as a salary but since his employee was assisting the assessee in carrying out his business the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... commission was assessed at 0.15% instead of 2% applied by the Assessing Officer. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. The CIT(A) held as under: The above submissions have been carefully considered. So far as the admission of additional evidence is concerned, the AO has objected to their admission without any rebuttal per se looking to the issue at hand, the same are admitted being necessary for deciding the appeal. The appellant has pointed out that substantive addition of the entire deposits in his bank account, and in the bank accounts of M/s Sidh Trading Co. and M/s Pride Trade Agency, were made in his case in the A.Y. 2008-09, and after reopening, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant are shown to be out of the business of share broking. The appellant has filed the bank statement, the debit notes and difference bills, and certificate of SEBI of registration as a sub-broker, in support of this contention. It is seen that in the subsequent scrutiny assessment orders, no adverse view has been taken of the transactions in the Syndicate Bank account. After carefully looking at the above facts and circumstances, the addition made of the credits in the bank accounts, amounting to ₹ 13,30,16,654/- is deleted. 8.2 So far as the addition of commission income is concerned, the AO has computed the commission income on the credits in the bank accounts of M/s Pride Trade Agency and M/s Sidh Tradi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... From the perusal of the order of the CIT(A), it can be seen that the protective addition in the hands of Dharmender Kumar was restricted to the commission at 0.37% on the net credits for A.Y. 2010-11. Therefore, there is no credible basis for treating the entire turnover as the income of the assessee for which the assessee has filed additional evidence before the CIT(A) which were taken cognizance by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) has rightly held that in the subsequent scrutiny assessment orders no adverse view has been taken on the transaction in the bank account and therefore, CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition of ₹ 13,30,16,654/-. As regards direction given to the Assessing Officer to compute the commission income at 0.37% o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
