2022 (10) TMI 899 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal rules in favor of Assessee, rejects Revenue's appeal on commission income taxation.

The tribunal allowed the Assessee's appeal and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. They concluded that the Assessee's commission income should be taxed at ... Unexplained cash deposits in the bank account - Addition being 30% of the addition of cash deposit - assessee has not been able to discharge his onus of providing confirmation from parties from whom he claims to have received Cash which was deposited in the Bank accounts owned and operated by him - HELD THAT:- Even though the assessee is doing the activity of Shroff without obtaining any license from Competent Authority but what is mandated under the provisions of the Income Tax Act is to tax income of the assessee, whether it was from legal or illegal source. Therefore the principles for determining the income will remain the same even the source of income is illegal in nature as held by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT vs. K. Thangamani [2008 (12) TMI 78 - MADRAS HIGH COURT]. Thus the Co-ordinate Bench held that after considering the facts in totality it was held that the assessee was acting as money transfer agent on behalf of the parties engaged in ceramic manufactures. Accordingly allowed the assessee’s appeal and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal. Computation of income at 0.25 per lakh deposited in the bank account of the assessee - It is appropriate to follow the ruling of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Shree Sidhnath Enterprise [2016 (6) TMI 289 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] it is the business to receive cash and issue cheques in lieu thereof for which the assessee charges commission amount. In the absence of any material to show that the cash in respect of which the cheque had been issued travelled back to the assessee, one fails to understand as to how such amount may be said to be the undisclosed income of the assessee and the Assessing Officer could not have charged the same as escaped assessment under the provisions of Income Tax Act. The grounds raised by the assessee are hereby allowed and the grounds raised by the Revenue are devoid of merits. Thus we have no hesitation in deleting the additions made by the Ld. CIT(A) and confirming that the assessee is liable to be taxed his commission income at 0.25 per lakh deposited in the bank account. Issues Involved:1. Legality of the reassessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act.2. Addition of unexplained cash deposits in the bank account.3. Determination of the income from commission for money transfer activities.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the Reassessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act:The Assessee initially raised concerns about the reopening of the assessment under Section 147, which had already been reopened and assessed earlier. However, during the proceedings, the Assessee's representative, Ld. A.R. Shri R.K. Doshi, chose not to press these grounds. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed these grounds as not pressed.2. Addition of Unexplained Cash Deposits in the Bank Account:The primary issue revolved around the addition of Rs. 31,31,81,622/- as unexplained cash deposits. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated the entire amount as unaccounted cash and added it as the income of the Assessee. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] partially allowed the appeal by confirming 30% of the addition and deleting the remaining 70%. The Assessee contended that he was merely acting as an intermediary (Angadia) and that only his commission should be taxed. The tribunal, after considering various precedents, including judgments from the Gujarat High Court and the Supreme Court, concluded that the entire cash deposit could not be treated as the Assessee's income. They emphasized that the cash deposits were followed by withdrawals, indicating that the Assessee was acting as a money transfer agent. The tribunal noted that the authorities failed to verify the Assessee's claim that the cash deposits were on behalf of ceramic manufacturers. The tribunal found no evidence suggesting that the Assessee had made personal investments or expenditures from the cash withdrawn. Therefore, the tribunal held that the addition of the entire cash deposit was unjustified and excessive.3. Determination of the Income from Commission for Money Transfer Activities:The tribunal referred to the Assessee's previous cases and similar cases involving other individuals engaged in similar activities. They noted that the Assessee had consistently claimed a commission income of 0.25% per lakh deposited in the bank. The tribunal found this claim reasonable and supported by the Assessee's statements and other judicial precedents. They cited the case of Shree Sidhnath Enterprise vs. ACIT, where the Gujarat High Court held that cash deposits related to the business of Shroff and did not represent undisclosed income. The tribunal also referred to the Supreme Court judgment in CIT vs. S.C. Kothari, which emphasized that both legal and illegal business incomes should be taxed similarly, considering profits and losses. Consequently, the tribunal directed that the Assessee's income be computed based on the commission rate of 0.25% per lakh deposited in the bank account.Conclusion:The tribunal allowed the Assessee's appeal and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. They concluded that the Assessee's commission income should be taxed at 0.25% per lakh deposited in the bank account, and the addition of the entire cash deposit as unexplained income was unjustified. The tribunal's decision was pronounced in the open court on 19-10-2022.