9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce the assessee has willingness to produce all the records, therefore, in our opinion, it would be appropriate if the matter is remanded back to the file of CIT(A). The order of CIT(A) clearly shows that the rectification order was passed by the Assessing Officer on the basis of internal audit party report whereby the audit party was of the opinion that instead of 2%, 8% commission rate should have been applied. Prima facie, the above said basis for rectifying the order passed by the Assessing Officer is not permissible in law. However, considering the rival contentions and willingness of the assessee to produce all the records, the assessee may be given one chance to explain the case before the ld.CIT(A). Matter is remanded back to the fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that there is no mistake which can be rectified u/s 154 of the I.T. Act. 7) The learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in estimating the income at 8% of Rs. 47,13,277/- without considering the fact that the said amount represents the sales effected by third parties and the assessee is entitled only for the commission which was rightly decided by the Assessing Officer at the time of completion of the assessment u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act. 3. The appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 257 days. Assessee has moved a condonation petition explaining reasons thereof. I have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. Having regard to the reasons given in the petition, I condone the delay an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore me, the ld. AR for the assessee has submitted that if given a chance, the assessee would be able to explain the order passed u/s 154 of the Act thereby modifying the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act whereby the Assessing Officer had wrongly computed the commission at 8% instead of 2% was erroneous. It was also the contention of the ld. AR that the assessee has been regularly showing commission income at 2% in all the previous and subsequent assessment years. 7. Per contra, the ld. DR has submitted that no material has been furnished before the ld.CIT(A) or the Assessing Officer justifying the computation of income at 2% and hence, the present appeal of the assessee is required to be dismissed. Further, the ld. D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e commission received as business income and determining the net profit at 8% is as per law, and needs no interference. Despite several opportunities during appellate proceedings, the appellant did not give any evidence to support his claim. In these facts and circumstances, I am in agreement with the action of the Assessing Officer and hold that the appellant is unable to substantiate any of his grounds and is not able to controvert the rectification order. 8. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. In the present case, the ld.CIT(A) has noted in para 5.1 of his order that no reply has been furnished by the assessee and that the assessee not even responded to the notice served upon him. Since the assessee has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
