TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 1441
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essment year disclosing income of Rs. 3,10,500/- as ''income from commission on money lending''. Ld. Assessing Officer was having AIR information that assessee had deposits aggregating Rs. 3,67,75,800/- in his saving bank accounts M/s. Axis Bank Ltd, Pudukkottai Branch and T. Nagar Branch. Assessee was required to show source for the deposited amounts. Reply of the assessee as summarized by the ld. Assessing Officer read as under:- ''3. The assessee derives income from money lending commission. 4. The assessee makes/collects advances by cash as well as by cheque. 5. The cash /cheque collected are deposited into the Bank account of the assessee and the same is utilized for making advances by cash as well as by cheque. 6. The asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he commission was received. (2) The assessee cannot charge uniform rate for all the transactions entered into by him as the same depends on the quantum of the loan. (4) The assessee has not borrowed any money from any person as evidenced by the cash flow statement. Hence, the requirement of filing the name, address and PAN of such persons are not applicable to the assessee. (5) The following factors in the business of the assessee are to be considered (a) The money is advanced both by cash as well as by cheque. (b) The advances are also recovered both by cash as well as by cheque. (c) The cash / cheques as in para (b) above are deposited in the bank account. (d) The funds available in the bank account are utilised....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sons from whom you have received and to whom you have given money during the period 0110412009 to 3110312010. Likewise, from whom you have received commission. Ans. As I do not remember the details of any transaction at the moment, I would submit the same if available in the residence. Q. No.11 Can you furnish the details such as name, address and PAN number of the persons in both Pudukkottai and Chennai who were advanced money. Ans. I am not able to furnish the particulars in this regard. Q. No.13 While verifying your bank statement, the following particulars were noticed. Accordingly, please explain the following clearly: (a) details of transactions with VT. M. Ganesan". Ans. I do not know the particulars in this rega....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ring the next hearing. Q. No. 26 Give the details such as the business connection and the outstanding amount through the same receivable by you from Kavita Shankar, KRV Mani, A. Marimuthu, M. Balu, Kumar Traders, Sagubarnisa, Sivanandam, Kumar, Sri Gokulam Chit & Co., Pee Tee Kay, S. Raja, Selvam Sea Food, Selvam, Spencer, UNI, Eltech, Shince Ph arms, Dipiha, M. Veerappan, R. Murugan, Sakthi Agencies, SP. Deivanai Achi, S. Raja, A. Rameshkumar, XSPESS, Sivasakthi Traders, Devaki Agencies, Sri Oli Vilakku Traders, Sundaram, SM Enterprises, Skatmindia, Sri Srinivasa Automobiles, HSB Clothing Ltd., Leela Clothing Pvt. Ltd., Chidambaram, Hermes Ticket, Dinakaran Medical Agencies, Express Buildings Ltd., Cheran Hotels, Slatco Magniludes, Prec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned income of the assessee, invested in money lending business and made an addition u/s.69A of the Act. 6. Aggrieved, assessee moved in appeal before ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Argument of the assessee was that the addition was purely based on imaginative figures. Relying on the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Poona Electric Company vs. CIT 57 ITR 521, State Bank of Travancore vs. CIT 158 ITR 102 and Udayan Chinubhai vs. CIT 111 ITR 584, assessee contended that real income alone could be taxed and every receipt could not be considered as income. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) after considering the submissions of the assessee held that ld. Assessing Officer could not bring out any material to prove a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thereof. According to him, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had applied the peak credit principle when assessee could not show that the deposits were made out of earlier withdrawals. 8. Contra, and in support of its own appeal, ld. Authorised Representative submitted that ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) though he correctly applied peak credit principle erred in sustaining additions to the extent of Rs. Rs. 21,80,646/-. As per ld. Authorised Representative presumption that assessee had earned agency commission of Rs. 3,67,758/- was incorrect. 9. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities below. It is not disputed by the Revenue that assessee had both cash deposits as well as ....