TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (11) TMI 843
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'ld. AO') passed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') dated 30.03.2016. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- "1. That the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 31/03/2016 and upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) on 12.07.2017 are perverse to the law and to the facts of the case because of not following proper law and procedure while completing the assessment proceedings. 2. That the assessing officer has grossly erred in law and to the facts of the case in making lump-sum addition of Rs. 12.26.467/- being commission income in the hands of the appellant at the rate of 0.60% merely on the basis of his presumpt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellant. 7. That the addition of Rs. 4,03,213/- made on the basis of interest income appearing in the Form 26AS of the appellant company is also perverse to the law and to the facts of the case as not tenable, because of posting as forming part of the Other Receipts appearing in the Profit & Loss A/c in the books of accounts of the appellant company. 8. That the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) were further not justified under the law and to the facts of the case, because the remand report which has been considered on the back of the appellant while adjudicating the appeal has never confronted / provided copy thereof to the appellant for its rebuttal thereof, prior to adjudication the appeal. 9. That the addition for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8.2021, 26.10.2021, 29.12.2021, 07.03.2022, 12.05.2022, 18.08.2022, 24.11.2022, 27.02.2023, 09.05.2023 and 26.07.2023 i.e., today. On none of these occasions, the assessee either in person or through its authorized representative was present for prosecuting the appeal. Not even an adjournment petition was filed by the assessee. The notices sent to the assessee to the address mentioned in Form No. 36 has been returned unserved by the Postal Authorities with the remarks, 'No such person.' Further an e-mail has also been sent to the authorized representative of the assessee which also did not fetch any fruitful result. In view of the continuous non-appearance of the assessee and his authorized representative, we proceed to dispose of this appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n entries in the hands of the assessee. This commission income was estimated at 0.60% by the ld. AO and an addition of Rs. 12,25,467/- was made in the assessment. This action of the ld. AO was upheld by the ld. CIT(A) as no evidences could be furnished before the ld. CIT(A) to buttress the arguments of the assessee. 5. Before us also, the assessee was not able to buttress his arguments by filing cogent documentary evidences even to prove that it is engaged in some business activity and that the credits and debits in the aforesaid bank account are business transactions. In these facts and circumstances, we do not deem it fit to interfere in the order of the ld. CIT(A) upholding the estimation of commission income @ 0.60% on total bank tra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntative to justify the fact as to whether this interest income of Rs. 4,03,213/- has been included in the total turnover. In any case, it is not in dispute that the amounts received from the aforesaid four parties represent interest income only which needs to be assessed separately under the head 'Income from other sources'. Once the receipt represents interest income which has been subjected to deduction of tax at source u/s 194A of the Act by the payers, then it cannot be part of total alleged business receipts as stated by the assessee and the said interest income is to be taxed separately under the head 'income from other sources' which has been rightly done by the lower authorities. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the action ....