9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it that grounds raised in the appeal is covered by the decision of Tribunal in assessee s own case for A.Y. 2011-12 [ 2018 (9) TMI 1989 - ITAT SURAT] . Therefore, do not find any error or illegality in the order of the ld. CIT(A) and we uphold the same. - Decided against assessee. - ITA No. 570/SRT/2019 - - - Dated:- 13-7-2022 - Shri Pawan Singh, Judicial Member And Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Shri Anil K. Shah, AR For the Respondent : Shri J K Chandani, Sr.DR ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1) OF INCOME TAX ACT PER: PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Surat (in short, the ld. CIT(A) dated 13/09/2019 for the Assessment year 2011-12. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- u/s 69 on account of unexplained investment levied by AO. 2. The ld. CIT(A) has passed the order without considering our written reply and order of ITAT. 3. The assessee craves leave to alter, amend, delete, all or any ground of the appeal. 4. The busine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... seized from the said group. The incriminating evidence indicates that they have received fund in various companies in the form of share capital for providing accommodation entry, which was not genuine. The said unaccounted fund received in cash was routed into books of account in the companies in the form of share application, share capital, share premium etc. In the search action, an information was gathered that the assessee through his proprietor concern made investment of Rs. 5.00 lacs in the shares of M/s Rajendra Suri Financial Services (Gujarat) Pvt. Ltd., with Barter group which was not genuine, such investment was not shown by assessee in his regular books of accounts. On the basis of such information, the Assessing Officer had a reason to believe that amount of Rs. 5.00 lacs for the A.Y. 2010-11 had escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act. The Assessing Officer reopened the case of assessee after taking proper approval of ld. PCIT-3, Surat on 27/03/2018. Notice under Section 148 of the Act was served upon the assessee. No return of income in response to notice under section 148 was filed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer recorded that despite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er considering the submission of assessee and the assessment order held that on the basis of information received from Investigation Wing, Ahmedabad, the assessee has invested Rs. 5.00 lacs which is not shown in his regular return of income. Incriminating documents found during the search reveals that the assessee has made investment of Rs. 5.00 lacs as share capital in the name of M/s Rajendra Suri Financial Services (Gujarat) Pvt. Ltd. Hence in absence of any clarification or evidence, the addition under Section 69 was upheld. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 8. We have heard the submissions of ld. AR of the assessee and the ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue and perused the material available on record. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the assessee is in the business of cheque discounting. The case of assessee was reopened second time for the assessment year under consideration. In the first re-assessment, the assessing officer made addition of the 10% of the credits in the accounts of the assessee, however, on appeal before ld CIT(A), the additions were restricted to 2% of the total credit. Against the order of ld CIT(A), the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o .15% thus, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee s own case for the same assessment year in ITA No. 2284 CO No. 167 dated 07.09.2018 wherein on similar transactions, the commission income @ 0.15% was sustained. 11. On the other hand, the ld. Sr. DR for the revenue supported the order of Assessing Officer. The ld. Sr. DR for the revenue submits that the commission income of assessee was assessed in first re-assessment order under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated 27/09/2017 which was recorded in the books of assessee. The transaction under dispute which was unearthed during the search action on Barter Group, Ahmedabad, which was not recorded in the books of assessee. The assessee has not disclosed such investment or transaction in his regular books of account. The assessee has not given any explanation before the Assessing Officer. Even before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has not filed any evidence except claiming that he is in the business of cheque discounting. The ld. Sr. DR for the revenue submits that the assessee has failed to explain about the investment in the share capital in M/s Rajendra Suri Financial Services ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessment order dated 27/09/2017 has no connection with the addition in assessment order passed under section 143(3)/147 dated 17/12/2018. The addition in the second assessment order dated 17.12.2018 is clearly based on the incriminating evidence about the investment in the share capital of M/s Rajendra Suri Financial Services (Gujarat) Pvt. Ltd. was found. We find that the assessee throughout the proceedings either before the Assessing officer or before the ld. CIT(A) has shown a very casual approach and only submitted in pleading that the assessee was in the business of cheque discounting. The cheque discounting business was projected as noble profession and as such no addition on account of unaccounted investment can be made. Thus, in absence of any evidence, we do not find any merit that grounds raised in the appeal is covered by the decision of Tribunal in assessee s own case for A.Y. 2011-12 in ITA No. 2284 2285/Ahd/2015 and CO No. 167 168/Ahd/2015. Therefore, do not find any error or illegality in the order of the ld. CIT(A) and we uphold the same. 15. In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 13th July, 2022 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
