TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 132
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6 without assigning any reason ignoring fact that appellant has already offered actual commission income in books of accounts. 4. Ld. NFAC ought to have consider the fact that appellant is retailer and quantum of cash transactions in retail mobile recharge business cannot be ruled out.. 5. Without prejudice to the above and in alternative, ld. NFAC ought to have estimated reasonable profit considering nature of business and prevailing market practices of identical business. 6. Charging of interest u/s 234B, 234C is not justified. 7. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 270A is justified." 2. Perusal of record shows that the impugned order was passed by the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC on 26/07/2022, however, the present appeal is filed only on 22/11/2022. Thus, there is delay of 59 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed his affidavit for condonation of delay. The learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC was delivered in Spam folder of assessee, thus the assessee could not realize about passing of order by ld. CIT(A). When the department initiated recovery of outstanding demand, the assessee checked ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is condoned. Now adverting to the merit of the case. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, filed his return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 30/09/2017 declaring income of Rs. 3,04,147/-. The case was selected for scrutiny. In para three (3) of assessment order, the Assessing Officer recorded/noted that the assessee is running his business in the name of M/s Vatshal Enterprises and deriving commission income from Idea Cellular Limited. During the year under consideration, the assessee deposited cash of Rs. 1.68 crore in his bank account. On confronting such fact, the assessee explained that he is engaged in the business of mobile recharge, coupons, top up, talk time by giving online credit of talk time and top up to various retailers and received cash from them which was deposited in his account. The assessee was asked to furnish the contract agreement with Idea Cellular Limited, ledger confirmation from the books of Idea Cellular Limited, details of commission received and ledger of sales of recharge coupons. The Assessing Officer recorded that the assessee failed to furnish any contract agreement with Idea Cellular Limited, details of transaction, comm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Assessing Officer in para 4 of assessment order, recorded that the assessee failed to submit party wise details, which was ignored by Assessing officer. The assessee also submitted month-wise cash flow statement, however, the Assessing Officer did not consider it properly. The Assessing Officer required to submit agreement with Idea Cellular Limited. Idea Cellular Limited is a large company having PAN India presence and they did not enter into agreement with retailers or distributors. Idea Cellular Limited is simply paying commission of transaction with them and deducted TDS, duly reflected in Form 26AS. The assessee furnished copy of such AS26. The assessee furnished one declaration from Idea Cellular Limited which is sufficient to prove that the assessee is a distributor of Idea Cellular Limited, such declaration is filed on record, there is no law which required existence of agreement for such business transaction. The assessee also submitted ledger account, copy of which is furnished before him. The assessee submitted monthly transaction report which proved the genuineness of transaction so there is no need for separate agreement. The Assessing Officer cannot resolve the est....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0 (Mad) held that profit of assessee cannot be estimated without rejecting its books of account. The ld. AR of the assessee also field copy of following decisions: (1) Shree Sanand Textiles Industries Ltd. Vs DCIT ITA No. 995/Ahd/2014 dated 06/01/2020. (2) Mistry Niranjan Ishwarbhai Vs ITO ITA No. 252/Ahd/2021 dated 28/09/2022. (3) J.M. Wire Inds Vs CIT (2012) 8 taxmann.com 297 (Delhi) (4) R.S. Diamonds India P Ltd. Vs ACIT ITA No. 2017/Mum/2021 dated 26/07/2022 (5) Anantpur Kalpana Vs ITO (2022) 138 taxmann.com 141 (Bang Trib) (6) Mrs. Umamaheswari Vs ITO ITA No. 527/Ahny/2022 dated 14/10/2022. (7) ITO Vs Sri Tatiparti Satyanarayana ITA 76/viz/2021 dated 16/03/2022. 9. On the other hand, the ld. Sr.DR for the revenue supported the order of ld. CIT(A). The ld. Sr.DR submits that the assessee has not explained the source of entire cash deposit. As per details furnished by assessee, the assessee has explained the source of Rs. 1.36 crore out of total credit of Rs. 1.68 crore thereby Rs. 36.00 lacs is not explained. As per details of total transaction aggregate of which is reflected on page No. 149 of paper book, the assessee has explained the entry/cash deposit of Rs. ....