Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
- ⚖️ Instantly identify judgments decided in favour of the Assessee, Revenue, or Appellant
- 🔍 Narrow down results with higher precision
Try it now in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New Feature Launched ✕
Just a moment...
Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
Try it now in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Tribunal upholds undisclosed income determination, dismisses appeal, affirms CIT(A) and Assessing Officer</h1> The Tribunal upheld the determination of Rs. 1,50,39,137 as undisclosed income (UDI), the addition of Rs. 1,78,204 for commission paid, and the charging ... Block Assessment in search case Issues Involved:1. Determination of undisclosed income (UDI) of Rs. 1,50,39,137.2. Addition of Rs. 1,78,204 for commission paid for obtaining accommodation entries.3. Charging of interest under section 158BFA.Detailed Analysis:1. Determination of Undisclosed Income (UDI) of Rs. 1,50,39,137:The appeal concerns the confirmation by the CIT(Appeals) of the Assessing Officer's determination of Rs. 1,50,39,137 as UDI. The genesis of the issue was a search and seizure operation at Friends Portfolio, revealing bogus transactions. The assessee received Rs. 1,78,20,431 from Friends Portfolio, of which Rs. 1,50,30,137 was declared in the return for the assessment year 2000-01 as 'Income from other sources', and Rs. 27,90,274 was declared in the block period return. The Assessing Officer concluded that the entire amount of Rs. 1,78,20,431 was taxable in the block period at 60%, as the entries were accommodation entries without real transactions.The CIT(A) upheld this, noting the improbability of the assessee not having traceable details of transactions if they were recorded in the normal course of business. The CIT(A) concluded that the income was disclosed due to the search and would not have been disclosed otherwise.The Tribunal found that the transactions were not recorded in the books before the search and were entered post-search to mitigate tax liability. The Tribunal held that the entire amount of Rs. 1,78,20,431 was UDI and taxable in the block period, dismissing the assessee's grounds.2. Addition of Rs. 1,78,204 for Commission Paid for Obtaining Accommodation Entries:The Assessing Officer added Rs. 1,78,204 as commission paid for obtaining accommodation entries, based on Shri Manoj Aggarwal's statement that he charged 50 paise per Rs. 100, with a similar commission to the intermediary. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition.The Tribunal upheld this addition, noting that the assessee did not cross-examine Shri Manoj Aggarwal or any other person involved, despite being given the opportunity. The Tribunal found the estimate of 1% commission reasonable and supported by evidence.3. Charging of Interest under Section 158BFA:The assessee was charged interest under section 158BFA for late filing of the return for the block period. The return was filed on 12-11-2003, beyond the 30-day period from the notice issued on 7-10-2003. The CIT(A) confirmed the interest, stating it was mandatory.The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order, as the interest levy was statutory and the assessee had not provided any arguments against it.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the determination of Rs. 1,50,39,137 as UDI, the addition of Rs. 1,78,204 for commission paid, and the charging of interest under section 158BFA. The Tribunal directed the exclusion of the UDI from the regular assessment, affirming the CIT(A)'s findings and the Assessing Officer's actions.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
