9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 132X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (7) TMI 823 - MADRAS HIGH COURT ] held that profit of assessee cannot be estimated without rejecting its books of account. Thus no justification in the direction of ld. CIT(A) to further estimate the income on the deposits between 01/06/2016 to 22/12/2016 which is not in consonance with the decision in PCIT Vs Marg Limited (supra). Even otherwise, the assessee has already included his commission income while filing return of income. In view of aforesaid discussion, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed. - ITA No. 340/Srt/2022 - - - Dated:- 30-6-2023 - Shri Pawan Singh, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Parin Shah, CA For the Department : Shri Vinod Kumar, 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 National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC)/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short, the ld. CIT(A)) dated 26/07/2022 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. The order passed by NFAC is bad I law and required to be quashed. 2. Ld. NFAC erred in law and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . To support such contention, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of SMC Bench of Surat Tribunal in Sureshbhai Sukhabhai Mistry Vs ITO in ITA No. 263/Srt/2022 order dated 31/03/2023 and in Nasim Vazir Shaikh Vs ITO in ITA No. 77 78/Srt/2023 order dated 17/03/2023. 3. On the other hand, the learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr.DR) for the revenue submits that the assessee is casual in taking timely action for filing appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has cooked up his own story for seeking condonation of delay. 4. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and find that the impugned order was passed by the ld. CIT(A) on 26/07/2022 and the present appeal is filed on 22/11/2022. The registry of this office has issued a defect memo pointing out a delay of 59 days in filing appeal. The assessee has already filed his affidavit for condoning the delay narrating the circumstances that the order of NFAC/CIT(A) was delivered in his Spam folder of e-mail and realized about dismissal of appeal only on initiation of recovery by the department. The ld. AR of the assessee made his submission of similar lines. I find that the assessee has depo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Cellular Limited as evident in the bank statement. The Assessing Officer was of the view that in absence of any bank book, ledger account of Idea Cellular Limited or commission of account from books of Idea Cellular Limited, commission income declared by assessee is not reliable. The Assessing Officer estimated income of assessee @ 8% of total cash deposit of Rs. 1.68 crore. The assessee has already declared commission income of Rs. 2,87,352/- in his return of income, thus the difference of commission income of Rs. 10,63,393/- (13,50,745 2,87,352) is added in the total income of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved by the additions in the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that he is an individual, running his business in the name of proprietorship concern. The assessee is in the business of mobile recharge coupons, top up, online recharge for various retailers. The assessee derived commission income from Idea Cellular Limited which is duly disclosed in the return of income. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted annual accounts, bank book, bank statement and cash book. The Asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld. AR of the assessee and the ld. Sr.DR for the revenue. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that complete details of summary account of Vatshal Enterprises from 01/04/2016 to 17/03/2017 was submitted before the Assessing Officer. The assessee also furnished certificate of distributor issued by Idea Cellular Limited certifying that Vatshal Enterprises is their distributor since May, 2016. Thus, the assessee furnished complete details of his bank account. The assessee also furnished cash flow statement of Vatshal Enterprises. The assessee received commission @ 2% of total transaction of Rs. 1.68 crores. The assessee also furnished the details of demonetized currency deposited by assessee in his account, copy of such details furnished by assessee s banker i.e. ICICI bank, Vyara dated 29/03/2017. As per such certificate, the assessee deposited 504 currency note of Rs. 500/- and 161 currency note of Rs. 1000/- thereby total deposit of Rs. 4.13 lacs. The assessee furnished complete details of cash deposit from 01/04/2016 to 8/11/2016 of Rs. 1.05 crore as a cash deposit, from 09/11/2016 to 30/11/2016 Rs. 29.82 lacs and from 31/12/2016 to 31/03/2017 of Rs. 33.94 lacs. The assessee has dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of assessee. The assessee furnished complete books of account. The books of account of assessee was not rejected. The nature of business of assessee is also not doubted. The ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to estimate the income in respect of cash deposit between 01/06/2016 to 22/12/2016, which is already offered by assessee by including its commission income in his commission received @ 2% in his return of income. The ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to estimate the commission without any basis. If the direction of ld. CIT(A) is followed, it would amount to double taxation of the same income. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in PCIT Vs. Marg Ltd. (Supra) held that profit of assessee cannot be estimated without rejecting its books of account. Thus, respectfully following the decision in PCIT Vs Marg Limited (Supra) I do not find any justification in the direction of ld. CIT(A) to further estimate the income on the deposits between 01/06/2016 to 22/12/2016 which is not in consonance with the decision in PCIT Vs Marg Limited (supra). Even otherwise, the assessee has already included his commission income while filing return of income. In view of aforesaid discussi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
