TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (1) TMI 1399
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nue read as under: i. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 29,92,009/- to the Gross Profit made by the A.O. without appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to maintain any stock register and that the A.O. was correct in rejecting the books of account for them being incomplete. ii. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,42,521/- made on the ground of excess commission paid, without appreciating the fact that the increase in such commission paid in comparison to earlier years was without any genuine and justifiable reason. iii. On the facts and in the circ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for the quantification of such commission paid. The assessee filed the partywise details of commission paid and the details of TDS made thereon. The AO observed that in the immediate preceding year, the assessee had claimed commission payment of Rs. 15,71,986/- @3% and in the F.Y. 2005-06, the assessee had shown commission payment of Rs. 6,38,059/- which was @2.5% of the sales made through salesmen. In the F.Y. 2006-07, the assessee had shown commission payment @3.25% and reduced the same to 3% in F.Y. 2007-08 and then substantially increased the rate of commission to 4%. The AO took into consideration the fact that the nature of business of assessee has remained the same and payment commission has been made to persons closely related to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a) and added back to the total income of the assessee. 4. The assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). The assessee submitted before him that his books of accounts are audited u/s 44AB of the Act and the AO was not justified in rejecting the books of accounts as he had not pointed out any defects. The assessee also submitted before the learned CIT(A) that he had not maintained any stock register and only the closing stock inventory was taken. He further submitted that the estimate of GP @22% is nothing but mere guess work. Having considered the submission of the assessee, the learned CIT(A) observed that if the AO wanted to reject the books of accounts, he ought to have compared the purchase bills and sales bills with the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee has wrongly accepted Form No. 15G/15H in respect of interest payment of Rs. 1,36,882/- paid to Shri Bipin P. Shah. Therefore, he directed the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 2,50,502/- (Rs. 3,87,384/- minus Rs. 1,36,882/-) made on account of interest without TDS. 5. Before us, the learned DR supported the order passed by the AO. The learned counsel of the assessee supported the order passed by the learned CIT(A) and also relied on the order of the ITAT "Á" Bench, Mumbai in the case of the assessee for the A.Y. 2007-08 (ITA No. 3737/Mum/2010) and A.Y. 2008-09 (ITA No. 4389/Mum/2011) 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. We find that similar issues arose before the Coordinate Benc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erence that assessee's profit is not in commensurate with the earlier years' so as to doubt the correctness of the profit shown by the assessee; and lastly, the manner in which the AO has worked out the gross profit on the basis of selected samples is also not a correct approach and if going by the trading result and gross profit of various items, it can be very well held that assessee's profit and trading results are much better this year, hence, the observation and the finding of the CIT(A) cannot be deviated from and accordingly, the same is affirmed. Thus, ground no. 1 as raised by the revenue is dismissed." 6.1 In respect of ground of appeal similar to 2nd ground in the instant case, the Tribunal has held as under: "After c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re, such a disallowance cannot be made in view of the newly inserted Proviso to section 40(a)(ia) w.e.f. 1.4.2013. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Landmark Townships Pvt Ltd. (supra) has held that such a Proviso has to be given retrospective effect. Thus, respectfully following the decision of Delhi High Court, we hold that in case recipients have included 'interest income' in their return of income then 'no disallowance should be made'. Accordingly, we direct the AO to verify the contention of the assessee and give consequential relief. Accordingly, ground raised by the assessee is treated as partly allowed." 6.3 Facts being similar, we follow the order of the Co-ordinate Bench as delineated at para 6, 6.1 & 6.2 and uphold t....