Unsupported commission addition based on another dealer's data was remitted for fresh examination.

An addition for alleged suppressed commission income cannot be sustained where the assessment is based on data belonging to another dealer, because material not relatable to the assessee cannot form a valid basis for income addition. The Tribunal noted that the discrepancy had not been raised before the lower authorities and additional evidence was sought at the appellate stage, but the decisive point remained the mismatch in the underlying data. The matter was therefore set aside and remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh, de novo consideration.

---

---

Issues: Whether the addition made on account of alleged suppressed commission income, based on data said to relate to another dealer, could be sustained, and whether the matter should be remitted for fresh consideration.

Analysis: The computation of suppressed commission was challenged on the ground that the data relied upon in assessment did not pertain to the assessee. The record showed that the assessee had not pointed out this discrepancy before the lower authorities and had also sought admission of additional evidence at the appellate stage. Even so, the decisive consideration was that an addition in the hands of an assessee cannot be sustained if it is founded on data belonging to some other person. In those circumstances, the proper course was to set aside the controversy and direct a fresh examination by the Assessing Officer.

Conclusion: The addition was not finally sustained and the matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only for statistical purposes, with the substantive issue left open for fresh adjudication by the Assessing Officer.

Ratio Decidendi: An assessment addition cannot stand where the material relied upon is shown to pertain to a different assessee, and such a mistake warrants remand for fresh consideration.

---