2025 (11) TMI 1169

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion 143(1) of the Act on 22.07.2016 at returned income. Search and seizure proceedings under section 132 of the Act was conducted in the case of Shri Dinesh Tyagi/Sh. Pradeep Tyagi /M/s. Dkrrish Builders Pvt. Ltd. & others on 16.05.2018. The case of the assessee was also covered in operation under Section 132 of the Act. The case of the assessee was centralized with this charge by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-18, New Delhi, vide order under Section 127(2) dated 25.09.2019. Notice under Section 153A of the Act dated 15.01.2020 was served. The assessee filed his return of income on 30.01.2021declaring total income of Rs. 5,47,170/-. Detailed questionnaire along with Notices under Section 142(1) of the Act were issued on 22/12/2020 & 08/04/2021.The assessee submitted his reply to the queries and documents. On completion of proceedings, Ld. AO vide order dated 30.09.2021 made addition of Rs. 11,63,955/-. 3. Against order dated 30.09.2021, of Ld. AO, the appellant/assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) which was dismissed vide order dated 07.03.2024. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant/assessee preferred present appeal with following grounds: "1. That the Ld. CIT (A)....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sing Officer under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 9. The Appellant craves for leave to add, amend, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal 10. That all the grounds are without prejudice to each other." 5. Learned Authorized Representative for the appellant/assessee submitted that request for approval and approval under Section 153D of the Act are dated 30.09.2021. The approval under Section 153D of the Act is for several years. The consolidated approval does not discuss specific issue to show as due application of mind. Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider ITRs, computation mentioned in the order. Reliance was placed on following decisions: 1. Dalip Jindal, Versus DCIT, CC-08, New Delhi, 2025 (6) TMI 404 - ITAT DELHI (Para 7); 2. Apple Commodities Limited Versus DCIT, Central Circle II, Noida, 2025 (4) TMI 1132-ITAT DELHI (Para 6 to 7); 3. Veena Singh Versus ACIT Central circle-25, Delhi, 2024 (4) TMI 1025-ITAT DELHI (Para 10); 4. Kavita Jain Versus DCIT Central Circle Karnal, 2025 (1) TMI 175 -ITAT DELHI (Para 15); 5. Shr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....9 of the impugned order. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to explain the contents of nature of the information found during the search. The assessee was asked to explain the calculation related to commission received and profit earned which is mentioned at the seized document. At page no.27, the Assessing Officer observed that there is calculation of the total commission earned by the assessee after some discount which was mentioned at Rs. 11,63,955/-. Further it was asked to explain the accounting treatment of the part commission and profit earned by the assessee with reference to the books of account maintained by the assessee. 8.1 In response, assessee submitted that it received gross commission of Rs. 11,63,955/- and commission was shared with franchises, the relevant share of the franchises are Rs. 9,31,640/- and IC share i.e. share of Investor Clinic (partner of the assessee) is at Rs. 2,32,791/-. Further the assessee submitted that the commission is payable to the assessee (receivable). After deducting the charges of office space, other borrowing expenses, such as, utility service used, advertisement, etc. incurred by t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ived by the assessee is Rs. 11,63,955/- however the franchises share is Rs. 9,31,164/- and IC of Rs. 2,32,791/-. It was submitted that as per the agreement with the IC which were the expenses has to be borne by the parties since expenses are more than commission earned by the parties, they have decided not to continue with the business. Further he submitted that apart from the treatment of the commission by the lower authorities, he submitted that the AO and ld. CIT (A) invoked the provisions of section 69A of the Act. The information found by the authorities are certain documents containing the details of commission received but the addition cannot be proposed u/s 69A of the Act and he relied on several decisions and prayed that the addition may be deleted. 8.4 On the other hand, ld. DR of the Revenue relied on the findings of the lower authorities. 8.5 Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observe that during search, certain documents were seized and as per the page 27 of Annexure A-1, assessee has received certain gross commission which was not declared in its books of account. Assessee claimed that the gross commission is shared with franchise....