TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 1072
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment Year (AY) 2010-11 and 2012-13 respectively. Certain facts and grounds of both these appeals are common, therefore, with the consent of parties both these appeals were clubbed, heard together and are being decided by this consolidated order to avoid the conflicting decision. For appreciation of facts, the appeal in ITA No. 542/Srt/2023 for the A.Y. 2010-11 is treated as a "lead case". In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: "1. The Ld. CIT(A), grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,24,77,252/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act being bank transactions of Axis Bank A/c No. 910010002119147 as per para 5.2 of the appeal order. 2. The Ld. CIT(A), gross erred in not estimati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e to substantiate and furnished the source of cash credit and other entries in his bank account. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee filed his reply on 10/12/2016 and submitted that he earned commission income @ 0.5% on demand draft made from his bank in favour of Gujarat Mineral and Development Corporation (GMDC). Further all the deposits in his banks pertains to other persons for whom the assessee got prepared Demand draft and handed over to GMDC for procurement of coal. The reply of assessee was not accepted by Assessing Officer by taking a view that the assessee failed to explain why this bank account was not reflected in his books of account. The Assessing Officer on perusal of details of bank deposit was of the view that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... opportunity to the assessee, the assessee was not submitted any detail. The assessee failed to furnish any detail in the assessment order as well as in the appellate proceedings. Thus, confirmed the addition made in the assessment order. Further aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). 4. We have heard the submissions of the learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee and the learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the case of assessee was reopened on the direction of ld. CIT(A). During the assessment, the assessee was asked to explain the nature of transaction. The assessee in his reply submitted that he used to receive commission....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om very small means of persons as nature of business does not require any capital to be invested. In the bank account, no huge balance ever remained at any point of time. Merely the assessee was unable to file party wise details, entire bank transaction cannot be taxed as income. The ld. AR of the assessee submitted that in a similar assessees who were also engaged/indulged in similar cheque discounting or Shroff business, various Benches of the Tribunal has restricted addition to the extent of 35 paise to 12.5 paise per Rs. 100/- as commission income. Copy of such decision in Rohit P Panwala ITA No. 608 to 612/Ahd/2010, Umeshchandra Garg Vs ACIT (2004) 91 TTJ Agra 549 and C.K. Telang Vs ACIT ITA No. 4538/Del/1993 and ITA No. 361/Srt/2018 i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee vehemently argued that the assessee is in the business of cheque discounting or making cash payment on receipt of demand draft or cheque and received commission of .50% per Rs. 100/-. We find that no details of customer or persons to whom the assessee made transactions is given. The ld. AR of the assessee in his submission explained that no details of such persons are maintained and the nature of business is peculiar. 8. We find that the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in various cases as relied by the ld. AR of the assessee has made/restricted the addition @ 0.125% to 0.35%, however, this combination in case of ITO Vs Shri Deepak Viothaldas Suchak in ITA No. 361/Srt/2018 wherein the ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition on simil....