9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 1563X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and confirmed the addition made by the AO at ₹ 1,53,31,937, without considering the same being business turnover and consequent abatement of payment were made to Vodafone Mobile Services Limited for purchase of Sim Card and vouchers. He only harped upon about the non compliance of various notices. Considering the facts of the case, we hereby direct the AO to calculate estimated profit @1% at ₹ 1,53,311, on transactions of ₹ 1,53,31,060, being the net income of the assessee which will meet the ends of justice. Consequently, the addition made u/s 69A of the Act is hereby quashed since the nature and source of deposit is clearly established. Needless to mention here that there will be tax liability in the hands of the assessee since income is below basic exemption limit. Thus, grounds no.1 to 9, are allowed in terms indicated above and the assessee gets relief of ₹ 1,51,77,749 i.e., [₹ 1,53,31,060 ( ) ₹ 1,53,311]. Levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C - Assessee has denied the liability of interest charged under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. Since the income of the assessee is below taxable limit, there is no scope of charging any inte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nces the CIT(A) NFAC erred in not considering that the entire cash deposits were business receipt duly recorded in cash book and bank book and amount were paid to Vodafone Mobile Services, for which assessee is distributor, therefore addition confirmed by the CIT(A) NFAC is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive; 8. On the facts and circumstances the CIT(A) NFAC erred in confirming addition without considering the facts of the case and considering that the cash was deposited in the F.Y. 2015-2016 in body of assessment order as there is no such cash deposited in F.Y. 2015-2016 and treating the same is typographical error which cannot be rectified by the assessing officer, therefore order passed is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive; 9. On the facts and circumstances the CIT(A) NFAC ought to have accepted the income of the assessee were below the prescribed limit treating the sum of Rs. 877/- as unaccounted income is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive; 10. The assessee is denied the liability of interest charge U/s. 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax act, the same may kindly be deleted 11. The appellant craves leave to amend, add or take a new ground or grounds at the time ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l show cause notice u/s 144 of the Act, vide DIN:ITBA/AST/F/144(SCN) (F)/2021 22/ 104095802(1) 17/3/2022 was issued and the same was served upon the assessee on the email-Id registered with the Department with a request to submit the details/information. Despite this, there was no response from the side of the assessee. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made addition of ₹ 1,53,31,060, on account of unexplained money aggrieved by which the assessee filed appeal before the first appellate authority. 4. Before the learned CIT(A) NFAC, the assessee has filed a meticulous reply and the learned CIT(A) NFAC did not consider the reply of the assessee and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee by observing as follows: The appellant in 7.1 his statement of facts submits that During the previous year relevant to Asstt. Year 2017-2018, he was doing business under the name and style of Rashi Traders and has distributorship of Vodafone Mobile Services Limited. He was in new line of business. He used to make payments to Vodafone Mobile Services Limited for purchases of sim cards, recharge vouchers and easy vouchers and used to sale the same to various retail shops in and around the cit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the sale were business receipts deposited in the bank during the previous year relevant to assessment year 2017-2018 and not the assessment year 2016-2017, as stated in the assessment order and reinvested in purchase of new sim cards and vouchers from Vodafone Mobile Services Limited. The income earned from the business was below the prescribed limit, therefore, the assessee has not filed return of income in terms of section 139 of the Act. During the year under consideration the assessee has received sum of ₹ 1,53,31,060, from customers by way of sale of sim cards, recharge vouchers and easy vouchers and said amount were directly paid to Vodafone through cheque and RTGS for purchase of new sim cards and vouchers. The entire payment was made by proper banking channel directly to Vodafone which were duly reflected in the bank statement of the assessee. The learned Counsel further submitted that the assessee was having no knowledge of Income Tax and since the income were below prescribed limit, therefore, the assessee had no compulsion to file the return of income. The assessee has not received any notice under section 148 as well as notice under section 142(1) of the Act durin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aders 67 10. Copy of ledger account of Incentive Received of M/s. Rashi Traders 68 11. Copy of ledger account of Commission Received M/s. Rashi Traders 69 12. Copy of application U/R 46A for submission of additional evidence filed before CIT(A) NFAC 70 to 72 13. Copy of written submission filed before CIT(A) NFAC 73 to 79 14. Copy of acknowledgement of proceed ings response showing the details submitted by the assessee 80 to 81 8. We also find that the assessee has furnished bank statement of Bank of Maharashtra which is placed at Page-4 To 34, of the Paper Book showing the entire deposits and payments made to Vodafone Mobile Services Limited. During the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee has furnished group summary of sales account along with ledger account, which are placed at Page 55 To 65, which is also clearly shows that the assessee has made sale of ₹ 1,21,33,383, by way sale E-Topup, and made sale ₹ 2,69,930, and sale of voucher of ₹ 28,08,975. On the said transaction, the assessee has received commission at ₹ 1,81,969, and incentive at ₹ 3,05,256, and the same were gross receipt of the assessee. The CIT(A), NFAC, has not considered t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
