TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (12) TMI 132
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he same identical facts. Therefore, with the consent of both the parties, we proceed to hear both the appeals together and to pass a consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. First, we shall take up appeal in ITA No. 400/NAG/2017 for A.Y. 2007-08. 4. The sole ground raised by the assessee challenging the action of CIT(A) in confirming the addition made by the AO on account of commission income in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Brief facts relating to the issue on hand are that the assessee is an individual derives income from commission and agriculture. According to the AO, no return of income filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2007-08, but however, received commission on sale of property to Shri Ramesh Santani an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he absence of verification of the statement of the assessee about the payment to the said two persons, the AO added Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rs. 8,00,000/- - Rs. 2,00,000/-) to the total income of the assessee. 7. Aggrieved by the such order of AO in making the addition on account of commission, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A), wherein, vide additional ground furnished the copies of receipt of amount endorsed by the seller Shri Yogesh Vaidya and Shri Rajesh Vaidya. Since, the said evidence was not there before the AO, the CIT(A) sought remand report. We note that the remand report is reproduced from pages 12 to 23 of the impugned order. Considering the said remand report, the CIT(A) confirmed the view of AO in finding the affidavit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... sale transaction. Later on, the appellant has also alleged that, in fact, total amount of Rs. 65,31,2501- been received by the seller as against sum of RS. 56,00,000/- mentioned in the sale deed. Also that amounts received by the consenter, in excess of commission, has been given back to the sellers. It is pertinent to note that even in remand proceedings, the appellant has failed to produce any of the concerned person i.e. either the seller or consenter in support of his contentions. In fact, even the addresses given by the appellant's are not found to be correct. The appellant submissions stating that it is the duty of the AO to trace these sellers/consenters are found devoid of merits altogether. Appellant's further submissions ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... at all stage of proceedings, to rebut the presumption drawn against him u/s 68 by producing concerned parties. 5.1 After perusal of entire material on records & in my considered view, AO is found justified in making the impugned addition in the appellant's hands. Accordingly, addition of Rs. 6,00,000/- for AY 2007-08 and of Rs. 5,00,000/- for AY 2008-09 is found sustainable and, hereby, confirmed." 8. On perusal of the above finding of the CIT(A), we note that the contention of the assessee from day one was that he received amount to an extent of Rs. 14,00,000/- vide three cheques out of which he received Rs. 3,00,000/- for year under consideration as commission and remaining Rs. 11,00,000/- paid to the above said sellers i.e. ....