TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (6) TMI 565
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing for personal purposes. 4. That the appellant/assessee craves leave to add, to amend or withdraw all or any of the above grounds on or before the hearing of the appeal." 3. As regards ground no.1 of the assessee the brief facts of the case as per AO's order at pages 2 to 6 are reproduced herein below :- "The P&L a/c of the assessee include receipts on account of sale and misc.income for Rs. 3,73,63,369/- and Rs. 1,20,87,649/- respectively. The details about the nature of misc. income have not been submitted along with the return. However, in course of hearing the assessee submitted the same as commission income received as under :- Name & address Our bill No./date Nature of services Amount (Rs.) rendered Rawment Resources 3C, Oriental House 6C, Elgin Road, Kolkata-700020 15.01.03 Services rendered in connection with supply and delivery to Vishakapattam store of Medium carbon ferro Chrome to Vishakapattnam Steel Plan, 275 MT @rs.3431 MT 14,94,077.54 28.02.03 Co-ordination & Liasioning Work with Usha Ispat/MSIC and Jindal Vijaynagar of LAM coke 9,43,525 Total 24,37,602.54 Rawment Commodities (P)Ltd. 3C Ori....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 14,94,077.54 10,00,000.00 Cheque No.017701 dated 24.01.2003 of HSBC, Shakespeare Sarani Branch, `4,94,077.54 Cheque No.369801 dated 10.02.2003 of HSBC, Shakespeare Sarani Branch, 9,43,525.00 9,43,525.00 Cheque No.369836 dated 06.03.2003 of HSBC, Shakespeare Sarani Branch. 4. Orissa Mineral Corporation on 10.02.2005 Returned unserved on 01.03.2005 with postal remarks "No such addressee". On receipt of reply a letter was written to the assessee on 07.04.2005 intimating the result of inquiry as mentioned and also requested to show cause why adverse inference should not be taken. 5. A.K.Verma, Ispat Industries Ltd.. AGM, Shipping on 10.02.2005 Reply received stating that Mr;.A.K.Verma left the job. 6. Mr.B.ravi Kumar, Visakhapattnam Steel Plant, on 10.02.2005 Came back unserved on 04.03.2005. On receipt of reply a letter was written to the assessee on 07.04.2005 intimating the result of inquiry as mentioned and also required to show cause why adverse inference should not be taken. 7. Mr.Pawan Kr.Kedia M/s. Jindal Vijayanagar Co.Ltd. on 10.02.2005 Reply was received on 14.02.2005 stating "W have no transaction with M/s/. Rawmet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the genuineness and correctness the assessee was asked to further to submit details regarding person responsible for liasioning job, details of expenses made to earn commission income and in its reply the assessee submitted on 13.03.2006 that "the services relating to commission earning activities were not confined with a single designated person. On the other hand the commission earned was the result of collective labour of the employees of the co. under the guidance of the management of the co. it has already been stated that the expenses incurred to ear n the commission are shown under the head traveling expenses and general expenses in the P & L a/c but those cannot be isolated specifically because of the integrated in nature of the operation of the co. The assessee in its reply has submitted that the expenses have been shown under the head traveling expenses and general expenses. P&L a/c were examined and found that under these two heads the expenses are for Rs. 23,053/- and Rs. 35,295/-. In other words, the assessee has tried to say that by making expenditure of less than Rs. 58,000/- approximately, commission of Rs. 1,20,87,469/- have been earned. It is worth to mention th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....income from other sources". 3.1. Before the ld. CIT(A) the ld. Counsel for the assessee made the submission which were not accepted and accordingly the ld. CIT(A) vide para 7.2. of his order confirmed the action of AO. 4. The ld. Counsel for the assessee relied upon basically the submissions made before both the authorities below and prayed the Bench to reverse the order of ld.CIT(A). 5. The ld. DR, on the other hand, relied upon the orders of both the authorities below. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. The undisputed fact in the present case are that the assessee has declared Rs. 1,20,87,649/- under the head 'Miscellaneous Income' but no nature of the said miscellaneous income was explained in the return of income. During the course of assessment proceedings it was submitted by the assessee that the same was commission income received from various persons. To verify the facts the AO issued notices u/s 133(6) of the Act to the persons concerned. In most of the cases notices were returned back unserved. It is surprising that Shri Pawan Kr.Kedia and Shri R.K.Khetrapal denied of having any transaction with the assessee. It is only in the ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns of various courts of law relied upon in his order in para 8.2. The ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed to allow the depreciation as well as the unabsorbed depreciation in view of the decisions relied upon before the ld. CIT(A)as well as before us. 9. The ld. DR, on the other hand, relied upon the orders of both the authorities below. 10.We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. The disputed fact in the present case is that the ld. Counsel for the assessee in his written submission which has been reproduced in para 8.1. by the ld. CIT(A) has relied upon various court of law which have not been discussed or distinguished by ld. CIT(A) in his order at para 8.2. The relevant part of the ld. CIT(A)'s order is reproduced herein below for the sake of convenience :- "8.2. I have perused the assessment order and considered the submission of the appellant. The fact of the case is that the appellant set off depreciation of Rs. 1,26,90,763/- against its income. However, the A.O. did not allow the same as there was no business income available with the appellant in the assessed income. After going through the facts and circumstances of the case, the A.O. was j....