9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 432X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hen the assessee has proved the availability of cash balance. Assessee has shown cash balance of Rs. 3.55 crores as on 31/03/2016, Rs. 1.72 crores as on 31/03/2017 and Rs. 2.39 crores as on 31/03/2018. All such figures of availability of cash is not disputed by the AO. In a similar case of Angadia in CIT Vs Patel Natverlal Chinubhai Co. [ 2012 (9) TMI 1223 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT ] held that when in support of cash seized during search, assessee brought on record its cash book which duly showed that said amount belonged to its particular branch office, amount so seized could not be added to assesses taxable income taking it to be unexplained money. Assessee has shown a taxable income of Rs. 2.30 crores during the year. Before us, the ld. CIT-DR for the revenue failed to bring any contrary fact against the availability of cash in hand for preceeding assessment years at various specified branches from where the cash was transported. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order/finding of ld. CIT(A) which we affirm. Grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed. Addition on account of salary expenses, rent expenses, stationary and vehicle expen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in their profit and loss account @ Rs. 100/- per one lacs as commissions income. Hence, the assessing officer is directed to delete the entire additions sustained by ld CIT(A). In the result, ground No. 2 is allowed. Addition on unaccounted/excess commission - CIT-A deleted the addition partly - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) despite the fact that the assessee denied any such transaction reflected in the impugned images held that the at the most, it can be treated as cash transferred from one place to another place and maximum can be brought to tax, the commission at the market rate of Rs. 200/- per lacs and worked out the addition to the extent of Rs. 46,436/-. We find that the Assessing Officer has not brought any evidence on record to substantiate such addition. Once the Assessing Officer has accepted the business of assessee as of Angadias/courier services at the most only transaction charges/commission can be added and not the substantial or entire amount allegedly reflected in the images. We find that the ld. CIT(A) taxed the commission income @ Rs. 200 per lacs and sustained the addition to the extent of Rs. 46,436/-. In our view, the commission added by the ld. CIT(A) does not re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ier and carting agent which is usually called Angadias. On 04/01/2018, the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Department, Mumbai carried out interception at Mumbai Central Railway Station on 04/01/2018. During such course of interception action, a cash amounting to Rs. 4.29 crore was seized. The information regarding said seizure was forwarded to Income Tax Investigation Wing, Mumbai. On the basis of such information, the DDIT(Inv), Unit-1, Mumbai issued summon under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) to various parties/Angadias wherein it was discovered that cash and jewelry amounting to Rs. 89,83,700/- belongs to Surat bases Angadias firm (Patel Madhavlal Maganlal Co. (Assessee). The Investigation Wing of Income tax department also carried out a survey action at Surat office of assessee at 3/145, Parsi Sheri Navapura, Surat and Ratnasagar Building, Varachha, Surat on 11/04/2019. The said survey action was converted into search under Section 132 on 13/04/2019 and concluded on 14/04/2019. Survey action at two offices at Vadodara office of assessee was also converted into search action and concluded on 13/04/2019. During the course of such search, cash ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the additions, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed detailed written submissions. The submission of assessee are recorded in para 6.1 of the order of ld. CIT(A). In the written submission, the assessee submitted that a cash of Rs. 89,83,700/- was seized by CGST, Mumbai on 04/01/2018. The cash was transferred to Income Tax Department. During the course of post search proceeding, partner of assessee was examined. In the statement, the partner of assessee firm was submitted that the cash belongs to firm which was transported to Mumbai from Rajkot, Bhavnagar and Ahmedabad branches of the assessee from their cash balance in hand as per their day to day cash book maintained at respective branches. To support such submission, a certificate of C.A. was obtained and was filed at DDIT (Inv.) Mumbai. Certificate was issued by C.A. after verification of cash book of Rajkot, Bhavnagar and Ahmedabad branches and certified that cash balance on hand of respective branches and such cash was transferred to Mumbai on 03/01/2018. The source of cash seized at Mumbai was fully explained in the hands of firm. The statement of Shri Babubhai N. Patel, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 6. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee noted that in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has not considered (dealt upon) the submission made by assessee regarding source of cash found at Mumbai Central Railway station. The assessee claimed that the cash found belonged to the assessee and transported from Rajkot, Bhavnagar and Ahmedabad branches to Mumbai. Partner of assessee Kishore Kumar Manilal Patel in his statement before the DDIT(Inv.), Mumbai submitted that the cash belongs to the firm and was shown in the cash book of three branches. The assessee also provided certificate of C.A. All such evidences and submission which was crucial while deciding the liability was ignored by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer presumed that the cash seized was unaccounted belonging to other parties (clients) and accordingly taxed. The ld. CIT(A) during the appellate stage, again asked the assessee to produce the details of cash in hand for three preceeding assessment years. The assessee furnished such details which are recorded in para 6.3 of the order of ld. CIT(A) in the following manner: Cash balance as on Cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he lower authorities carefully. The ld. CIT-DR for the revenue submits that during the post search enquiry as well as during the assessment proceedings, the assessee failed to furnish any documentary evidences regarding intending purchase of property in Mumbai. A huge cash amount was transported through employee of assessee firm to Mumbai. Partner of assessee was also examined under section 132, who stated that the land deal was finalized by another partner Shri Kishore Kumar Manilal Patel and he has not produced the documentary evidence. The books of account of assessee do not represent the true picture of cash amount found from various premises. The assessee merely furnished the cash book of Rajkot, Bhavnagar and Ahmedabad branches does not prove that the cash of Rs. 89,83,700/- is explained. There was no documentary evidence that cash was transferred to Mumbai from Rajkot, Bhavnagar and Ahmedabad branches. 8. On the other hand, the ld. AR of the assessee supported the order of ld. CIT(A). The ld. AR of the assessee submits that in response to show cause notice dated 25/09/2021, the assessee filed its reply dated 28/09/2021. In the reply, the assessee fully explained the sourc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ailed to disclose the details of such property. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that they furnished complete source of cash available and transported from various destinations to Mumbai which is not examined and doubted only for ultimate investment/user. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee asked the assessee to furnish the cash in hand in three preceeding assessment years. As per direction of ld. CIT(A), the assessee furnished availability of cash in last three assessment years. Such details of availability of cash is recorded in para 6.3 of order of ld. CIT(A). We further find that the ld. CIT(A) also called and verified the availability of cash at three specific branches from where the assessee claimed to have transported such cash i.e. from Rajkot, Bhavnagar and Ahmedabad branches. Such availability of cash is also recorded by ld. CIT(A) in para 6.5 of his order. We find that the ld. CIT(A) after verification of cash available at three specific branches and the history of cash availability in three preceeding assessment years, took his view that the addition on cash seized was not warranted when the assessee has proved the availability of ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s appeal in IT(SS)A No. 50/Srt/2022 have raised following grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 1,72,25,981/- under Sec.69C of the Act on account of unexplained salary expenses. Rs. 8,43,788/- under Sec.69C of the Act on account of unexplained rent expenses and Rs. 4,03,710/- under Sec.69C of the Act on account of unexplained Station Vehicle Expenses under Sec.69C of the Act without considering the fact that the Assessing Officer has made the addition on the basis of statement of the partner of the assessee-firm recorded under Sec. 132(4) of the Act and comparative details available on record and despite the fact that the assessee has failed to furnish any explanation or details to contradict the findings of the Assessing Officer. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 29,73,77,660/- on account of unaccounted /excess commission income to Rs. 21,55,608/- without considering the facts of the case properly and ignoring the findin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red in not appreciating the fact that on the basis of 32 transactions appearing on page 1 and 2 of Annexure A-l, the actual amount of commission earned by the assessee firm amounts to Rs. 3,29,43,626/- and based on which single day commission income was worked out by AO at Rs. 10,29,488/- (Rs. 3,29,43,626/32 days) and accordingly the commission income for the entire year was estimated at Rs. 32,22,29,841/- for the entire year (excluding Sundays). 7. In addition and in alternate to Ground No.(2), (3), (4), (5) (6), on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in estimating the amount of annual commission at Rs. 4,62,768/- on the basis of Page No.1 2 of Annexure A-l for 15 days by considering commission income @ Rs. 200 per Rs. 1 lakh ( Exhibit 1 of the appellate order which is only partial reproduction of the actual figures appearing on the seized documents and it reflects only of the commission earned on delivery of parcel of Jewellery and Diamonds and the sum thereof and does not reflect the commission income earned on the transfer of cash). 8. In addition and in alternate to Ground No.(2), (3), (4), (5), (6) (7). on the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,608/- and other additions on account of rent expenses and employee expenses were deleted. 14. Further aggrieved, both the parties have filed their respective appeals. The revenue has filed appeal against restricting the commission income to the extent of 21,58,608/- and on deleting the addition of unexplained salary expenses, rent expenses and vehicle expenses. On the other hand, the assessee has challenged the action of ld. CIT(A) in restricting the addition income to the extent of Rs. 21,55,608/-. 15. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the record carefully. Ground No. 1 in assessees appeal relates to validity of assessment order passed after the time limit for passing the assessment order. We find that no submissions were made by ld AR for the assessee, therefore, this ground of appeal is dismissed as not pressed. Ground No. 1 of revenue s appeal relates to deleting the addition of Rs. 1.72 crore on account of unexplained salary, deleting the addition of Rs. 8,43,788/- on account of loan expenses and Rs. 4,03,710/- on account of unexplained stationary and vehicle expenses. The ld. CIT-DR for the revenue supported the order of Assessing Offi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lated to Rs. 1,69,684/-. The assessee was issued show cause notice to substantiate the expenses and to furnish the details of office at various places which are owned or taken on rental basis. The assessee failed to furnish complete details, PAN number of persons to whom rent was paid. In absence of complete details, the Assessing Officer worked out the rental expenses @ Rs. 12,000/- pm for 20 offices at different locations thereby calculated rental expenditure of Rs. 2.40 lacs in place of Rs. 1,69,684/- claimed by assessee. The Assessing Officer worked out the differences of Rs. 8,43,788/- (28,80,000 20,36,212). The ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition by taking a view that such addition is without any evidence or incriminating material. The addition is made on approximate figure. No such query regarding the rental expenses was raised during the statement of partner recorded at the time of survey. No addition in other assessment years were made. 17. On the issue of stationary expenses and vehicle expenses, the ld. CIT-DR submits that the assessee has debited stationary expenses of Rs. 4,37,810/- and vehicle expenses of Rs. 3,58,480/-. The employee of assessee are extensively trave ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Anand Kumar Jain HUF in ITA No. 5385, 5516,5522, 5524 to 5526 5540 of 2021, dated 12.02.2021. Pradeep Kumar Sharma Vs DCIT (2021) 132 taxmann.com 41, CIT Vs Mauli Kumar Shah (2008) (2021) 307 ITR 137 Gujarat, Savaliya Buildcon Vs DCIT, in ITA No 401/Ahd/2014 , DCIT Vs Hitesh M Bagdai IT (SS) No. 3/Rjt/2013. 20. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of the lower authorities carefully. We find that as per the Assessing Officer, statement of Babubhai N. Patel was recorded on 26-27/12/2020 i.e. during the assessment, he was asked to give the details of employees working in various branches and the salary paid to them. The Assessing Officer on the basis of figures of employees provided by partner with the firm at various branches worked out the average salary and multiplied with the employee, the Assessing Officer also added 40 employees by taking average two employees at 20 other places of business of assessee. The assessing officer on the basis of his estimation, workout the salary of 144 employees @ Rs. 12000/-pm. The assessee has debited expenses of Rs. 35,10,019/- in its P L account. Thus, the Assessing Offi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -. The assessee has shown total rent expenses at Rs. 20,36,212/- thereby difference of Rs. 8,43,788/- was worked out. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition by taking a view that there is no basis for making ad hoc addition of rent expenses. The addition is not based on any evidence. No specific question about the rental expenses of different stations were asked to the partner of assessee at the time of recording his statement. Similarly, for stationary and vehicle expenses, the Assessing Officer on the basis of his view that vehicle and stationary expenses, keeping in view the nature of business and frequency of travelling would be fair if estimated at Rs. 1.00 lacs per month thereby estimated Rs. 12.00 lacs for whole of the year. The assessee has already debited Rs. 7,96,290/- thereby the Assessing Officer worked out the addition of Rs. 4,03,710/- (Rs. 12,00,000-7,96,290). We find that the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition by taking a view that the addition is not based on any evidence. No evidence on unexplained expenditure was found during the search. The ld. CIT(A) thereby deleted both the additions i.e. stationary and vehicle expenses. Before us, except relying on the order of Ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... transactions are part of transactions recorded in the books of account. It was held that the transaction found in the papers were totally independent to the transactions recorded in the account and the income earned from these sets of transactions need to be separately taxed to the income offered by the assessee. On page No. 1 and 2 of Annexure-A-1, the details of 32 transactions for 15 days of khep (transfer of cash) of Rs. 96,41,640/- during the said period and considering the commission @ Rs. 200 per one lac, the total commission is Rs. 19,292/- and worked out the entire commission. The ld. CIT(A) worked out the commission outside the book of Rs. 16,92,840/- on the basis of his observation and restricted the addition to the extent of Rs. 21,55,608/-. The ld. CIT-DR for the revenue submits that the Assessing Officer made the addition on the basis of statement of employee and the various noting found on page No. 3 and 4 of Annexure-A-1. The ld CIT-DR for the revenue prayed to restore the addition made by assessing officer. 23. On the other hand, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that the Assessing Officer made addition by making the basis of seized material found during the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessing officer presumed that it is pertain to the date of search i.e. 11.04.2019. The assessing officer also took his view that commission details on the date of search represent the commission income for half day only. Based on entries written on page No. 3 and 4 of Annexure A-1, the commission income comes to Rs. 1,41,070/- and the cash transfer is Rs. 7.69 crores. The said commission income is of Surat office for half day only. The Assessing Officer during the assessment, noted that the assessee has offered commission income in the return of income of Rs. 2.48 crores. The Assessing Officer on the basis of statement of employee worked out the commission for whole of the year by excluding Sundays. The Assessing Officer estimated the commission income of all the branches and the assessee at Rs. 10,29,488/-per day and by excluding 52 Sundays, the Assessing Officer multiplied the income by 313 days and worked out the total commission income at Rs. 32,22,29,841/- and after granting set off commission income declared at Rs. 2,48,52,181/- worked out the difference of Rs. 29,73,77,600/-. 25. We find that before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed detailed written submission explai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee and his wife showing that assessee had received illegal commission of certain amount, since no incriminating material was found during search conducted upon the assessee and further, even such incriminating material on the basis of which said addition was made did not disclose name of assessee or material as to how assessee was connected with the seized material, such impugned addition was not justified. 27. We further find that combination of this bench in ITO Vs Deepak Vithaldas Suchak in ITA No. 361/Srt/2018 dated 30.07.2021, in a case of assessee who were engaged in cheque discounting business, the assessing officer made addition of entire bank deposits, however on appeal the ld CIT(A) the assessee took plea that in earlier year they have offered commission income on similar business @ Rs. 30/- to 40/- per lacs, which was accepted by assessing officer. The ld CIT(A) on considering their plea restricted the addition @ Rs. 50/- per lacs. On further appeal before Tribunal, the commission income was increased to Rs. 75/- per lacs. 28. We find that addition of commission income sustained by ld CIT(A) is not purely based on the incriminating material, rather based on his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the total transaction of Rs. 2.32 crores at the most can be treated as cash transferred from one place to another place for commission. Therefore, the maximum amount can be brought to tax only @ 200 per lac which comes to Rs. 46,436/-. The ld. CIT-DR for the revenue submits that the decision of ld. CIT(A) is not acceptable for the reasons that the Assessing Officer worked out the addition from various images which were extracted from mobile phone of Ashokbhai V Patel. Neither the assessee nor Ashokbhai V Patel accepted the fact that images relate to business of assessee firm. The ld. CIT(A) mentioned that these transactions relate to cash transfer, however, the assessee firm failed to explain to whom such cash was transferred or the cash was not transferred or it was returned back. The assessee firm failed to prove such transactions were not executed. In absence of documentary evidence, the addition in the hand of assessee firm was to be sustained. 32. On the other hand, the ld. AR of the assessee supported the order of ld. CIT(A). The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the Assessing Officer failed to bring any evidence that such cash transaction was actually executed. The a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the extent of Rs. 57,92,540/-[77,07,280/- - Rs. 19,14,740/- ( 15,67,170/- + 3,47,570/-)] made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained cash under Sec.68 of the Act even though the assessee has completely failed to furnish any details/evidences to explain the unaccounted cash seized either during the course of search/post search proceedings or during the course of assessment/appellate proceedings. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.ClT(A) has erred in restricting the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 17,29,16,910/- on account of unexplained cash balance to Rs. 3,45,834/- being the commission income worked out @ Rs. 200/- per lakh, without appreciating the fact that the addition was made on account of unexplained cash balances and that the assessee was unable to explain the cash balances shown in different offices or reconcile the difference in physical cash found during the course of search with the cash balances shown in the books of accounts, despite opportunities given during and after the post search proceedings and in assessment proceedings. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at Lehripura Vadodra of the appellant firm and all the evidences including cash book was submitted during the course of assessment proceedings and Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should not have directed AO to examine the appellant's claims and if appellant had cash in hand on the date of survey/search, no further addition is warranted in respect of cash found from the branch office at Lehripura Vadodra. 4. In facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should have deleted the addition of cash found from the branch office at Lehripura Vadodra amounting to Rs 26,64,100/- belonging to various constituents received for transfer during the ordinary course of the angadia business and all the evidences of receipt of cash during the course of angadia business were found during the course of search and was also submitted during the course of assessment proceeding and Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should not have directed AO to examine the details submitted of the clients from whom the cash was received and if the details are found to be in order the AO shall accept the cash as found from explained sources. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch proceedings. The assessee simply stated that this cash is already accounted for. The assessee failed to furnish complete details regarding source of cash during the assessment proceedings which remained unexplained till finalization of assessment order. As per observation of ld. CIT(A) regarding the cash of Rs. 15,67,170/- and Rs. 3,47,570/- being offered to tax, on verification, it was found to be correct and finding of ld. CIT(A) is acceptable to that extent. So far as cash of Rs. 21,44,960/-, Shri Rasikbhai N. Patel, who was employee of assessee categorically stated that during the recording of statement on 11/04/2019 that this amount is not recorded in the books of account. Shri Ashokbhai V Patel failed to corroborate the statement made regarding the said amount as to how this amount is reflected in the books of assessee. Shri Ashokbhai V Patel was manager of assessee and was responsible for keeping a track of cash transfer and commission income of assessee. The assessee accepted amount of Rs. 3,47,570/- seized from Alkapuri (Baroda) premises and Rs. 15,67,170/- from Varachha road, Surat branch as unaccounted income of firm, therefore, books of assessee do not represent the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0, the partner of assessee stated that some of the amount involved from the assessee firm but no accounts were provided. The assessee during the assessment as well as appellate proceedings, failed to furnish complete reconciliation and the details of entities whose cash was transferred as recorded on page no. 1 to 6 of Annexure-A1. The assessees contention regarding availability of cash balance on the basis of said Annexure was not acceptable as the assessee has admitted that it was involved in out of books transaction and even offered to tax the excess cash found during the search proceedings, therefore, the addition was made by Assessing Officer to the extent of transaction amount of Rs. 17.29 crores were correct. The ld. CIT-DR for the revenue submits that the ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition to the extent of Rs. 3,45,834/- by holding that the impugned cash held by the assessee in the regular course of its business cannot be taxed as the income of assessee and the commission earned on such cash transfer is to bet axed. The Assessing Officer was directed to taken the commission @ Rs. 200 per lac of cash handed thereby worked out Rs. 3,45,834/- (Rs. 17,29,16,910/1,00,000 x 200). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 200/- per one lac. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the Assessing Officer made addition on the basis of notings as cash balance of various branches as per seized material found during the search as per details mentioned on page No. 1 to 6 of Annexure- A2. The breakup of all the cash balance in various offices of the firm were provided to the lower authorities. The ld. CIT(A) has recorded break up at page No. 11 of his order which is as under: As per page No. 1 Cash Balance of Surat Office Rs. 21,80,760/- As per page No. 2 Cash Balance of Rajkot Office Rs. 18,97,530/- As per page No. 3 Cash Balance of Bhavnagar Office Rs.2,08,25,500/- As per Page No. 4 Cash balance of Bombay Rs.2,01,89,580/- Cash balance of Delhi Rs. 39,15,820/- Cash balance of Baroda Rs. 4,96,16,070/- Cash balance of Ahmedabad Rs. 7,42,09,150/- Rs. 14,79,30,620/- As per page ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 9,83,480/- was out of the cash balance as per cash book and (b) Rs. 26,64,100 belonging to various constituents received during ordinary course of business III Varachha branch Alkapuri Branch 15,67,170 Already offered amount of Rs. 19,14,740/- (Rs. 15,67,170 + Rs. 3,47,570/-) as income by crediting the said amount to profit and loss account and ultimately offered for taxation in ROI for AY 2020-21. Total 77,07,280 We find that the ld. CIT(A) after appreciating the contentions of assessee and perusal of cash book held that cash found from the Varachha Branch, Surat and Alkapuri Branch (Baroda) was offered to tax as undisclosed income, hence such addition was deleted. 45. So far as the cash found at Lahripura (Baroda) and Surat Branch, the Assessing Officer was directed to verify the cash and grant suitable relief. The ld AR for the assessee submits that a clear direction may be given to the assessing officer to verify the fact and allow relief in a time frame manner. As mentioned in para-10 of this order, that Hon ble Gu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the assessee. This fact is evident from the statement of Babubhai Patel. This cash was not found in the searched premises, such fact shows that cash in question is dealt by assessee by merely handling or transferring from one branch to another branch and does not belong to assessee. The cash is handled to their regular course of Angadiya business and cannot be taxed as income of assessee. The ld. CIT(A) held that at the most can be taxed is the commission earned by assessee on such transaction. The ld. CIT(A) estimated the commission of Rs. 200/- per lac and worked out the commission income of Rs. 3,45,834/- thereby granted substantial relief to the assessee. 47. Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee vehemently submitted that the commission estimated on handling of such cash is on the higher side, the assessee has already offered commission income in their return of income on the basis of income earned during their regular course of business. We find that this ground of appeal in assessees as well as in revenues appeal is similar to the grounds of appeal No. 2 to 8 of revenues appeal in AY 2019-20 and assessees Ground No. 2 of appeal, wherein we have accepted the plea of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
