9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 315X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were provided by the subcontractor to the assessee. The assessee has failed to furnish the description of the land and other details where the land development work was carried out and the sub-contractors have also admitted in their statements and the affidavits they have only provided accommodation entries. Assessee have not executed any work except providing accommodation entries, we consider that looking to the meager income shown by the assessee it will be reasonable to estimate the commission income earned by the assessee @ 4% of ₹ 1,02,04,082/- to the amount of ₹ 4,08,165/-. - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 898/Ahd/2017 - - - Dated:- 30-7-2020 - Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Member And Ms. Madhumita R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... should therefore be allowed to produce additional evidence during the course of appellate proceedings arid should be admitted. 2.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in upholding the disallowance of the entire sub-contractors payments of ₹ 94,48, 000/- as non-genuine. 2.2 That in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the ld. CIT(A) has grieviously erred in upholding the disallowance of the entire sub-contractors payments of ₹ 94, 48,000/- as non-genuine. 3.1 Without prejudice to the above and in the alternative, when the contention of Dept was that the land development expenses paid by PACL Ltd were not genuine, both the lower authorities have erred in law and or in fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the PACL Ltd. and the work carried out by the assessee through the sub-contractors. On verification, the assessing officer noticed that there was no detail of location of land, area of land, survey no of land etc. in the agreement of the work contract. Therefore, the assessing officer has issued notices u/s. 133(6) of the Act to the following subcontractors:- Sub-Contractors 1. Smt. Vibha Shasikant Soni 2. Shri. Shasikant Soni HUF 3. Shri. Shasikant Soni 4. Shri. Navin K. Thakkar 5. Shri Rishi S. Dholakiya Vide the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r commission earned from the transaction be disallowed in the case of the assessee as it is unjustified to tax the whole contract receipt and disallowed the entire expenditure. The Id. counsel placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements:- (i) Rahee Infratech Ltd. vs. DCIT, IT(SS)A Nos. 05/Ahd/2015 06/Ahd/2015,07/Ahd/2015 dated 4lh July, 2018 (ITAT, Kolkata) (ii) ITA vs. Rupa Promoters Pvt. Ltd., ITA Nos. 2640/Ahd/2011, 2641/Ahd/2011, 2642/Ahd/2011 2643/Ahd/201 J dated 31-07-2012 (ITAT, New Delhi) (iii) ITO vs. Shri Maheshbhai Tulsibhai Patel, IT A No. 2284/Ahd/2015/SRT C.O. No. 167/Ahd/20l5/SRT, ITA No. 2285/Ahd/20l5/SRT C.O. No. 168/Ahd/20l5/SRT, dated 07/09/2018. On the other hand, Id. departmental representative ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... native the assessee has failed to produce the sub-contractors along with documentary evidences for examination before the assessing officer. Consequently, the assessing officer has treated the development expenses of ₹ 94,48,000/- claimed as paid to sub-contractors as bogus expenses and added to the total income of the assessee. During the course of appellate proceedings before ld. CIT(A), the assessee has furnished additional evidences i.e. copies of confirmation account with IT returns of the said five sub-contractors, copies of bills for cost of services etc. The ld. CIT(A) has admitted the additional evidences on the ground of not providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. The assessing officer has examined the subcontractors ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to estimate the reasonable commission income. We have also gone through the judicial pronouncements referred by the Id. counsel during the course of appellate proceedings before us as referred above in this order. It is noticed that in case of Raheel Infratech Ltd. vs. DCIT supra, the Coordinate Bench of the ITAT, Calcutta on similar fact of making payment to a number of parties including PACL Ltd. it was held that no work was done by the assessee or the sub-contractor and the Hon'ble ITAT has sustained the decision of Id. CIT(A) in estimating income @ 5% of the book entry after reducing the income already disclosed by the assessee. In the case of ITO vs. Shri Maheshbhai Tulsibhai Patel supra referred by the Id. counsel, the Co-ordinat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
