TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 306
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er Parties on which commission income has been considered in the hands of Naresh Vora. 2. The appellant craves, leave to add, alter, modify, any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of appeal." 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return of income on 29.10.1997 declaring total income to the tune of Rs. 1,83,310/- for the assessment year of 1997-98. A survey action u/s 133A was conducted by the Investigation Wing of the Department on 28.09.1998. The assessment was completed on 28.03.2000 after determining the taxable income to the tune of Rs. 5,79,84,610/-. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) who partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Thereafter, the order of the CIT(A) was given effect on 17.09.2002 determining taxable income of Rs. 1,31,38,920/-. Thereafter both the parties filed an appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and send the matter of controversy for fresh consideration by the AO vide order dated 29.11.2007. The assessee Sudhir Rai Vora and his brother Shri Suresh Rai Vora and Balwanti Rai Vora were hawala bill providers to some of the petroleum product dealers in Mum....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is that an amount of Rs. 3,81,637/- was received by his brother Naresh B Vora in the cash from Naptha quota holder parties and commission income thereon has been considered and assessed in the hand of Naresh B Vora therefore in the said circumstances, the present addition in the hand of assessee is not justifiable. The assessee has no objection if the said claim be verified. This fact needed to be verification, therefore, finding of the CIT(A) in this regard does not from justifiable hence, ordered to be set aside and we restored this issue on the file of the AO to verify this fact that an amount of Rs. 3,81,367/- and its commission has already been considered in the hand of the Naresh K Vora. The AO would pass the order afresh in this regard after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, this issue is hereby decided in the favour of the assessee against the revenue. ISSUE NO.2:- 7. Issue no.2 is formal in nature which nowhere required any adjudication. 8. In result, appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed for statistical purpose. ITA NO.4440/M/2013:- 9. The revenue has filed the present appeal against the order dated 31.03.2015....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is referring to a/c. no. 2166 and on other hand he is referring to total cash deposits received from the naphtha quota holders, without in fact specifying the respective bank accounts to which the said sums have been deposited. The appellant has submitted that a total sum of Rs. 2,1 1,63.040/- was received by Shri Naresh Vora from Atlas Petrochemicals Ltd., and Handsrup Petrochem Ltd., Naptha dealers. It has to be mentioned here that in the assessment as completed in the case of Shri Naresh Vora for the year 197-98 it has been found the total cash deposits received during the said year is Rs. 13,89,11,705/- on which 4% commission had been brought to tax, which has been confirmed in first appeal. Further it is noted that the A.O has not specifically pointed out the account in which or pertaining to whom the deposit of Rs. 2,13,83,250/- was made. In this context it is relevant to revert to the assessment order passed in the case of Shri Sudhir Vora for AN 1997-98 under s. 143(3) dated 28.3.2000, a copy of which has been placed in the paper book as submitted in page nos 34 to 48. In paragraph 13 of the said order dated 28.3.2000 the A.O has mentioned that the unexplained deposit in ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts as unearthed by the investigation wing that the appellant and his brother were engaged in providing hawala bills/accommodation entries, the said explanation is not without merits. If the purchases are fictitious than it follows the sales are equally fictitious. Moreover the AO had himself added that sale of Rs. 45,18,575/- relates to M/s. Galaxy Plast-O-chem. It has already been concern of Shri Naresh Vora, the brother of the appellant. In so far as the transaction relates to M/s. Galaxy Plast-o- Chem, it is held that no addition pertaining to said concern can be made in the hands of the appellant. The addition of Rs. 45,18,575/- is therefore, deleted." 15. On appraisal of the above mentioned order, we found that the Assessing Officer added the sale of Rs. 45,18,575/- relates to M/sM/s. Galaxy Plast-O- chem, which was the proprietary concern of Shri Naresh B Vora. Since, this transaction was not related to the assessee, therefore, the same was order to be deleted. The facts are not different at this stage. Nothing was produced before us to suggest the matter that the said amount was belonging to the assessee. No doubt in the said circumstances, the CIT(A) has rightly deleted t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed to appreciate that hawala business was done by appellant brother Naresh Vora and that the commission on the said amount has been taxed into his hands. 2. The appellant craves, leave to add, alter, modify, any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of appeal." 22. The facts of the present case are the same as mentioned in the above mentioned appeal no 4621/M/2013 therefore, there is no need to repeat the same. However, the figure is different. ISSUE NO.1:- 23. Under this issue, the assessee has challenged the confirmation of the commission of Rs. 4,39,494/-. The contention of the assessee is that the said amount has already been assessed with his brother Naresh B Vora therefore the said commission is not liable to be considered in the hand of assessee, therefore, in the said circumstances, the present addition is not justifiable which can be verified in accordance with law. This fact needs to be verification therefore finding of the CIT(A) in this regard does not seems justifiable hence, order in this regard is herby ordered to be set aside and we restored this issue on the file of the AO to verify this fact that an amount of Rs. 4,39,494/- and its comm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., that M/s. Pooja Industrial Corporation is the proprietary concern of the appellants brother Shri Nitin B. Vora. Besides, while considering the appeal in respect of Shri Sudhir Vora for the captioned year, it has been observed that the cash deposits made to the various accounts are out of various amounts received by Shri Naresh B. Vora as mentioned in the rough cash book. Since, all the entries have been considered in the hands of Naresh vora, and M/s. Pooja Industrial Corporation is no way connected with the appellant the addition of Rs. 55,130/- is directed to be deleted." 30. On appraisal of the above mentioned finding, we find that the CIT(A) has gone through the entries and record of the books of account and came to the conclusion that the Pooja Industrial Corporation was the proprietary concern of the appellant brother Shri Naresh B Vora and the entries are required to be considered in hand of the Naresh B Vora. Pooja Industrial Corporation was nowhere found connected with the assessee, therefore, the amount was deleted. No material of any kind was produced before us to which it can be assumed that the Pooja Industrial Corporation was belonging to the assessee. Therefore, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ful consideration to the matter. The investigation by the Department and post search enquiries conducted into the business activities of the appellant revealed that the main business activity of the appellant was to supply hawala bills on which commission was charged at a predetermined rate. Besides, he carried on his own chemical business i.e. SBPS. On the other hand the AO has taken a view that he cannot agree with the earlier order of CIT(A) dated 13.07.2004 wherein it was held that the appellant could not have dealth with Naptha swithout having any license, stating that even without a license nothing prevented the appellant from buying and selling Naptha. Further the AO has proceeded to state that the appellant having seen huge margins in Napththa adulteration has purchased a few tankers himself and traded in Naphtha to earn profit. Further, it is on record that earlier no explanation or submission was given by the assessee for the reason that he was in judicial custody and hence not able to appear before the departmental authorities. On an appreciation of the entries facts and circumstances I am unable to sustain the findings/view of the AO that inspite of not having a license....