TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 1419
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ef. 3. The grounds raised in ITA No. 4003/Del/2017 for A.Y. 2008- 09 by the assessee read as under: 1. wrongly assuming jurisdiction u/s. 153A of the Act: 2. in passing order u/s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at an income of Rs. 18,75,910/- against the returned income in a sum of Rs. 2,55,511/-. 3. in making following additions to the returned income: a) Rs. 13,00,397/- on account of commission estimating the total commission at Rs. 18,57,710/-(0.5% on Rs. 37,15,41,801/-) against Rs. 5,57,313/- returned; b) Rs. 3,20,000/- on account of service charges; 4. Charging interest u/s. 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. All the above actions being arbitrary, erroneous and unlawful must be quashed with directions for appropriate relief. Assessee appeal for A.Y. 2007-08 4. When the case was called for hearing neither the assessee nor any authorized representative appeared nor any adjournment application has been filed despite due service of notice for the today's hearing. Therefore, we proceed to adjudicate the appeal ex- party qua assessee after hearing the arguments of Ld. CIT(DR). 5. From the copy of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cases of BSBK Group including the assessee and all the relevant material and details of beneficiary was with the assessee therefore the AO could not lay onus of the shoulder of the assessee to alleged that the assessee has not been able to furnished the trail leading to the beneficiaries. In such a situation when the AO himself his alleging that the assessee is providing accommodation entry then if the debit and credit side of account is taking together then only a very small account would remain that is element of commission income accrued to the assessee. In our humble view the entire amount of credit entries cannot be added to the taxable income of the assessee ignoring the debit side entries and as when the assessee is receiving cash and issuing cheques then said cheque of almost same amount then the assessee cannot be held beneficiary of entire amount or entire amount of credit entries treating the same as unexplained. Therefore the addition made by the AO and uphold the Ld.CIT(A) on account of unexplained credits cannot be held as sustainable and we direct the AO to delete the same. 8. So far as addition on account of commission income at the rate of 2.5% is concerned the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....13. On careful consideration of above submissions we are of the view that it was the duty of the assessee to substantiate its claim towards expenses incurred by him on account of service charges paid to proprietors of ten firms and listed in para 4.6 of the assessment order. However despite proper opportunity of hearing the assessee failed to provide names and address of the onus of these firms to whom he paid the service charges. The Assessing officer also noted that the assessee did not provide any supporting evidence like bills/vouchers etc. to support said contention and claim of payment of service charges. In such a situation we are inclined to hold that the AO was right in making disallowance and Ld. CIT(A) was also correct in upholding the same. Therefore the ground no. 3(b) of assessee for A.Y. 2008-09 is dismissed. 14. Since the facts and circumstances of A.Y.s 2008-09 to 2013-14 are similar and identical on the issue of service charges therefore our conclusion drawn for A.Y. 2008-09 would apply mutatis mutandis to other five appeals therefore the ground no. 3(b) of assessee for A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2013-14 is also dismissed. Ground no. 3(c) of assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at during the search proceedings on 24.05.2012 a cash of Rs. 13,92,500/- was found out of which of Rs. 12,50,000/- was seized. During the statements u/s. 132(4) of the Act dated 24.05.2012 the assessee was asked to explained the source of said cash and replying to question no. 8 and 9 the assessee submitted that 3.5 lakh is saving of Mrs. Sadhna Agarwal Rs. 2,00,000/- is saving of Mr Prerit Agarwal Rs. 2,00,000/- is saving of Ms Yashika Agarwal and rest amount he received on sale of his flat. The assessee has also explained that he had advanced a sum of Rs. 10 or 11 lakh for Flat no. 11, Second Floor, Vandana Apartment and he sold his rights of his flat after taking advance of Rs. 15 lakh which is going to be registered on 2.07.2012. But the assessee did not produce any documentary evidence in this regard and the AO concluded that the assessee has failed to produce documentary evidence in support of his claim and source of cash found from his residence and the same was remained and unexplained. From the relevant part of first appellate order para 8.27 to 8.32 we not that the Ld. CIT(A) also allowed due opportunity of to explain source of cash but the assessee could not explained th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uation when the assessee is explaining that the part amount belong his wife, son and daughter then the amount of Rs. 7.5 lakh viz Rs. 3.5 lakh pertaining to wife to Rs. 2 lakh each pertaining to son and daughter has to be held as properly explained. One cannot expected to maintain or procure any documentary evidence in this regard. So far as receipt of Rs. 15 lakhs on account of sale of assessee rights in the Flat no. 11, Second Floor, Vandana Apartment is concerned the assessee has not placed any documentary evidence in this regard to substantiate that he received Rs. 15 lakh against sale of his rights which could be easily established by way of filing documentary evidence of purchase sale of flat. In absence of such documentary evidence the reply of assessee to question no. 9 as noted by the AO in para 5 in the assessment order cannot be held as causable and acceptable. Hence remaining part of Rs. 5 lakh seized by the search team remained unexplained therefore the addition made by the AO on account cash seized during the course of search and seizure operation is reduced to Rs. 5 lakh. Accordingly ground no. 3(a) of assessee for A.Y. 2013-14 is partly allowed. 23. The assessee ....