2010 (5) TMI 950

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....8 under the provisions of section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The revenue has taken two grounds in the appeal as under:- 1. "In the facts and circumstances of the case, ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting additions made in the hands of the assessee on the protective basis, while substantive additions made in the hands of M/s PACL India Ltd., New Delhi in the assessment year 2006-07 were still pending at the first appellate stage. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to give credit of TDS to the assessee even after holding that the amounts on which tax has been deducted at source, has actually not been received by the assessee." 2. Before us, the ld. DR submits that....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ot treatment from the PGI, Rohtak. Thereafter, he remained jobless and did not work. e) He has not filed any return of income as he has started working only from four-five months (it means, work started in the year 2007). When shown the return of income, filed in his name, he remarked that this return has not been filed by me nor he has got it filled from anyone else. Signature on it is his and this is one of the papers signed by him on the directions of Shri Dev Raj. f) When he was asked about his proprietary concern (as per return of income) i.e., M/s Sapra Trading Company, he deposed that he has never worked with the name & style of M/s Sapra Trading Co., nor he has heard about M/s Sapra Trding C. g) When he wa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....can be brought to tax. The assessee herein being found to be name lenders could have charged only the commission for so lending the name. In the form of bank statement it is also evident that the amount received was purported to be refunded back to PACL India Ltd. Therefore, income of the present assessees are only to the extent of receiving commission and since all these persons have offered 8% of their income, no further amount is taxable. At the same time, the ld. CIT(A) has found that the income is not assessable as business income or under section 44AD of the Act but only as income from other sources which in any case could not have exceeded the amount offered for tax. Since correct income has been offered for tax by the assessees here....