TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (8) TMI 430
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eciating the fact that the Director had retracted the above statement during the course of assessment proceeding itself, and also during the appellate proceeding, and had claimed that the transaction with M/s Punj Llyod Ltd was not genuine. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding commission income of only 0.25% on the transaction with M/s Punj Llyod Ltd without any basis. 4. That the order of the CIT(A) is perverse, erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law. 5. That the grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other." 3. During the year under consideration, the assessee company was mainly engaged in the business of trading in Iron Ore Fines etc. E-return of income declaring income of Rs. 1,39,61,784/- was filed by the assessee on 13/10/2010. Thereafter, the assessee filed revised computation of income declaring income of Rs. 1,41,88,970/-. Prior to filing return, a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was carried out on 17/3/2010 in case of Punj Llyod Group of case. During the course of post search enquiries, survey was conducted at the business premises of the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t because both are duly entered in the books of accounts of assessee. Therefore, Ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition to Rs. 1,01,400/-, alleging that as per common practice while providing such bogus entries small percentage of such bogus entry is taken by entry provider as commission, over and above the amount, so it is held that assessee has charged commission @ 0.25% of Rs. 4,05,53,574/- against which assessee has filed the present appeal before Your Honours. Against the deletion of Rs. 4,04,52,174/- revenue has filed the appeal. The brief facts of the case are as under:- Appellant is a company engaged in the business of trading of iron ore . During the impugned assessment year appellant sold 1350.108 MT Bars to M/s. Punj Lloyd Ltd for Rs. 4,06,37,894/-and corresponding purchases was made from M/s. Ramsarup Utpadak for Rs. 3,67,84,909/-. A search operation was conducted at the premises of M/s. Punj Lloyd Ltd. on 17.03.2010 and during the course of post search enquiries a survey was conducted at the business premise of the assessee on 30.05.2010 and during survey statement of director of assessee company Mr. Dilip Didawani was recorded. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ter showing due tax have been paid on sale made to M/s Punj Llyod Limited. PB 55 is the ledger account of M/s Ram Sarup Utapadak showing the regularity of the transactions. PB-56 is the details of payments made by assessee to M/s Ram Sarup Group during the impugned assessment year. PB 57-58 is the copy of bank statement of the M/s Ram Sarup Utapadak showing the receipt of payment via banking channels from assessee company. PB 59-60 is the copy of the bank statement of the assessee evidencing the payment made by assessee via banking channels. PB 61-62 is the copy of statement of director in which the said question was asked. PB 77-81 is the copy of submission dated 17.09.2013 filed by assesse before Ld. AO duly submitting all the documents vehemently proving the genuine ness of the transactions entered by assessee. PB 81-131 is the copy of annual report containing balance sheet and profit and loss account of M/s. Ramsarup Industries Ltd. evidencing the complete details of address and contact details of all units including unit no. 2 i.e M/s Ramsarup Utpadak Ltd. PB 132- 306 is the copy of complete trail of docum....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the following judicial precedents. Revision-Erroneous and prejudicial order-Assessment vis-a-vis disclosure during survey-Sec. 13 3A does not empower any ITO to examine any person on oath-Thus, the statement elicited during the survey operation has no evidentiary value-ITO did not accept the income declared by the assessee after the survey in a mechanical way, but applied his mind to various aspects of the matter before completing the assessment-Advances admittedly received by the assessee from two parties have been explained partly and the unexplained amount is telescoped in the income already disclosed-Hence, no separate addition was made-Alleged admission in the statement of the managing partner was only a qualified one and the assessee had clearly explained the same to the AO by cogent materials- Order passed by the AO cannot be said to be erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of Revenue-CIT not justified in invoking powers under s. 263- PAUL MATHEWS & SONS vs. CIT, (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker) - Income from undisclosed sources-Addition-Addition on the basis of statement recorded during survey under s. 133A-Sec. 133A does not empower any IT authority to exam....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T(A) at page 12. (PB 76) 1. Ld. AO in his reply dated 29.10.2014 to remand report has alleged that all the bills and documents in respect of each thirty five trucks have been produced, but no evidence has been produced by asseessee in respect of barrier crossing fee incurred by them in respect of any of the 35 trucks. This also goes to prove that in fact no sales have been made and, these are just book entries and only bills have been arranged through entry operator. This fact further finds support from the fact that just from 16th to 19th sep, 2009 35 trucks of goods were sent but transporter has no documentary evidence of expenses incurred in respect of barrier fee etc. even in respect of single truck. Since these are just accommodation entries. In reply, it is submitted that assesse have produced voluminous evidences to show the genuineness of the transaction entered and whereas the barrier crossing fee is concerned, it is a very nominal expense incurred by transporters. Non availability of documents in respect of such petty expense cannot negate the all the evidences placed on record proving the genuineness of claim of assessee. Adverse obser....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... entry is taken by such entry provider as commission, over and above the amount. Since in the present case the entry has been provided by for Rs. 4,05 crores. It is held that 0.25% of such amount has been received by the appellant in the form of commission. Accordingly, Rs. 1,01,400/- is treated as commission income of the appellant company. In this regard, respectful submission of the appellant that Ld. CIT(A) assumed that the appellant must have received commission at the rate of 0.25% on the amount of sales made by assessee without any coborative evidence in this regard. Ld. CIT(A) himself has admitted that nothing has been found on the records to show that payment received from M/s. Punj Lloyd Ltd. has been returned by assessee and also the payment made by assessee to M/s Ramsarup Utpadak was also not found to be received back by the assessee. In the light of the above it is vehemently clear that not even an iota of evidence has been found by CIT(A) proving that the transaction entered is bogus. Therefore, sustainment of addition of Rs. 1,01,400/- is nothing but the outcome of surmises, conjectures and reflection of pre biased mind set of the Ld. CIT(A)." 7....