9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 354X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the assessee was an entry provider and allowed his bank accounts to be used by other persons in lieu of commission at 0.25% of the deposits. Having observed so the CIT(A) applied @.5% of the total deposits on the same reasoning in the current year as well which we do not find in any way to be wrong and in consistence with the facts of the case. Accordingly we are inclined to uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A) by dismissing the appeal of the revenue. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nly issue raised by the revenue in the various grounds of appeal is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) directing the AO to charge commission @ 0.5% of the total deposits on the basis of next year assessment by ignoring the fact that the principal of res-judicata does not apply to the income tax proceedings. 5. With the assistance of ld. CIT-DR, we have perused the facts before us and observe that the AO has made addition of Rs. 1,33,22,17,440/- as undisclosed income of the assessee in the assessment framed u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act on 27.12.2017. 6. In the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by observing and holding as under: "The Ld. A.R stated that in the subsequent AY, while assessing the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee himself has offered that the commission may be taken @ 0.23% of the deposits. However, in case of similar nature in charge of ITO, Wd 13(1), Kolkata in the case of Ms. Anubhav Infrastructure Ltd., the commission is assessed at 0.3%. Taking a similar view, the commission is assessed (a) 0.3% on total deposits in the account of the assessee i.e. Rs. 91,12,79,888. Therefore, the commission received is assessed at Rs. 45,56,399/-. It is also seen from the return of income that the assessee has shown Rs. 1,32,240/- as income from other sources. Therefore, the difference amount of Rs. 44,04,199 is treated as undisclosed income of the assessee in form of commission income and added to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llowed." 7. We observe from the appellate order that the Ld. CIT(A) has noted in the appellate order for AY 2011-12 under similar facts commission @0.25% of the total in the books and assessee was added to the income of the assessee on the ground that the assessee was an entry provider and allowed his bank accounts to be used by other persons in lieu of commission at 0.25% of the deposits. Having observed so the Ld. CIT(A) applied @.5% of the total deposits on the same reasoning in the current year as well which we do not find in any way to be wrong and in consistence with the facts of the case. Accordingly we are inclined to uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A) by dismissing the appeal of the revenue. 8. In the result appeal of the revenue is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
