TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 1882
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....961, of Rs. 59,09,990/-, in the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law. (2)The learned CIT(A) ought to have held that the AO cannot apply the provisions of section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to fix a higher income, on an erroneous basis, to raise a demand of Rs. 20.49,720/-, in the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law 3) The learned CIT(A), having held that the TCS amount did not belong to the appellant, the AO could not apply the provisions of section 69A and to deny the refund by estimating the income at 3.5% by imposing an additional burden, which is outside the scope of income, u/s 69A of the I T.Act, 1961, in the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law. (4) The learne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....quired the assessee to reconcile the TDS as per Form No.26AS with the income admitted in the profit and loss account. In reply, assessee stated that he was participating in gold auction for gold commission agents, goldsmiths, traders and their representatives, on their behalf. As per the assessee, when financial institutions auctioned jewellery, he bidded on behalf of such gold commission agents, goldsmiths, traders etc., Contention of the assessee was that he paid the bid amount and took delivery of the old gold using the funds given by such persons. As per the assessee, the gold once received was given it to the actual buyers. As per the assessee, the auctioneers collected tax from him, considering him to be the purchaser of the gold and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is doing the jewellery business in a small scale by acting as a commission agent for a old gold jewellery purchase anti Sale and has not maintained any books of account as per section 44AA of the IT Act 1961. 2)The assessee has not submitted any proof regarding the parties for whom he was acting as a commission agent. However as stated by the AR on 5/2/2016 and reply filed by the assessee on various dates it is understood that ''the assessee has acted as the accommodating party for the purcbaser of old gold, from whom the cash was deposited to the assessee's account and the same was withdrawn and remltted_at the auction centre on begakf of the purchaser. For which the assessee has received commission of Rs. 94,000/-- fr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... moved in appeal before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Argument of the assessee was that he had participated in the auctions held by M/s.Manappuram Finance Ltd and had bidded for various parties like gold commission agents, goldsmiths, traders etc. According to the assessee, he was only an agent participating in the auction. Contention of the assessee was that estimation of profit at 3.5% of the purchases was beyond reasonable limits, considering his nature of business as a jewellery appraiser. As per the assessee, he was only a jewellery broker and his turnover from jewellery was only @30.95 lakhs, during the relevant previous year. 6. However, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was not appreciative of the above con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... This peculiar situation in which TCS was made in appellant's name cannot be a ground to get the TCS credit in his name and claim refund. The offer of TCS amount as his income has no rationale particularly when he states that he gets a commission of 50 paise to one rupee per gram of gold purchases made by the parties on whose behalf he participated in the auction. It was offered as income only to claim credit of TCS against the tax chargeable on that income. Another absurdity in this claim is that income offered is equivalent to tax credit sought against that income which in any case does not belong to him for the reasons stated above. In fact, the appellant did not produce any evidence in support of actual quantum of commission earned ....