TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Assessee escapes Section 68 addition after proving transaction genuineness with complete bank details and evidence</h1> <h3>Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central-I, Kolkata Versus Pramod Sharma</h3> Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central-I, Kolkata Versus Pramod Sharma - [2024] 468 ITR 258 (Cal) Issues Involved:1. Justification of the Tribunal's reliance on the case of Praveen Kumar Agarwal.2. Deletion of the addition of Rs. 3,33,18,027 by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.3. Deletion of the addition of Rs. 166.59 crores under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.4. Substitution of income based on peak credit by the Tribunal.Summary:1. Justification of the Tribunal's reliance on the case of Praveen Kumar Agarwal:The Tribunal followed its decision in the case of Praveen Kumar Agarwal, who was the principal broker, determining the income by way of commission at 2% for accommodation entries. The Tribunal applied the peak balance principle in the case of Praveen Kumar Agarwal and extended the same to the respondent/assessee, who was a sub-broker.2. Deletion of the addition of Rs. 3,33,18,027 by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal:The assessing officer determined the income of the respondent/assessee at Rs. 3,33,18,027, being brokerage/commission at 2% on cash deposits of Rs. 166.59 crores. The Tribunal, however, determined the income at Rs. 4,07,17,055 by applying the peak credit principle. The Tribunal's decision was based on the concurrent findings of the assessing officer, CIT(A), and ITAT that the respondent/assessee earned brokerage/commission at 2% on cash deposits.3. Deletion of the addition of Rs. 166.59 crores under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:The assessing officer added Rs. 166.59 crores as unexplained cash credit. The Tribunal found that the respondent/assessee disclosed complete details of bank accounts, cheques issued, and cash received, which were not disputed by the department. The Tribunal held that Section 68 was uninvokable as the source of cash deposits was disclosed, and the income was determined as brokerage/commission on accommodation entries.4. Substitution of income based on peak credit by the Tribunal:The Tribunal applied the peak credit principle, determining the income at Rs. 4,07,17,055, which included brokerage. This was based on the daily summary of cash for the period provided by the respondent/assessee. The Tribunal's decision was consistent with its order in the case of the principal broker, Praveen Kumar Agarwal, and was not interfered with by the High Court.Conclusion:The High Court dismissed the appeal, answering all substantial questions of law in favor of the assessee and against the revenue, thereby upholding the Tribunal's decision.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
