TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 810
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... u/s. 148 of the Act and the assessment order passed are illegal, bad in law, without jurisdiction and not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 2. On the facts and in law, the provisions of Section 69A of the Act are not attracted in the present case, as the essential conditions precedent for its invocation are not satisfied. Consequently, the addition made under section 69A and the consequential application of Section 115BBE are without jurisdiction and liable to be deleted. 3. That the appellant had declared income under section 44AD at a presumptive rate of 75 percent of gross receipts, reflecting voluntary compliance. Presumption of undisclosed income in such facts in misplaced. 4. That the assessment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l justice, as the Assessing Officer rejected the appellant adjournment request dated 09.01.2025 and proceeded exparte. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the same without proper appreciating, causing grave prejudice to the appellant. 10. That reliance on third party statements under section 132(4) and 131(IA) and on digital data such as whatsapp chats and excel sheets, is unsustainable, as the material was neither confronted nor subjected to cross examination. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income on 7.1.2021 for the assessment year 2020-21 declaring total income of Rs. 5,16,150/- under normal provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The return of the assessee was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....companies at Darya Ganj, Delhi. During the post search proceedings, on perusal of the email id [email protected], it was noticed that various mails were received on the said mail id seeking payment of commission from Mr. Mujeeb Malik in respect of export sales facilitated by Mujeeb Malik through various commission agents. Based on the analysis of the replies from Mujeeb Malik, Soheb Malik, ALM group and after analyzing the digital date seized from the premises of Mujeeb Malik, six parties were identified namely, Sunny Khattar; Col. Kumar; Moyez Adaitya; Prakash Bajaj; Sham Sunder Dhingra and Yogender Pal Singh (YP Singh) On the basis of summary of the search and seizure action as described above, the case of the assessee for the subj....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee were disposed of vide letter dated 7.1.2025. Assessee in response to the above show cause has filed its reply vide letter dated 27.1.2025. The reply submitted by the assessee has been duly considered. Upon careful perusal of the reply, AO noted that assessee has failed to provide any credible documentation or justification to refute the findings of the commission income receipt amounting to Rs. 20,92,200/-. As per the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, commission income is taxable under the head "Income from Business or Profession," and the failure to disclose such income, coupled with the lack of explanation regarding the source and nature of such payments, raises serious concerns, which demonstrates that assessee has indee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of Sanjay Wahi vs. ACIT decided in ITA no. 2198/Del/2024 on 14.11.2025 on identical facts and stated that similar issue has been decided by the Tribunal in assessee's favour, thus respectfully following the ratio of the same, the addition involved in the present case may be deleted. 4. Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records. It is undisputed fact that addition in dispute was made on the basis of certain documents found during the course of search and seizure, containing the details of commission received, by invoking the provisions of section 69A of the Act. The relevant provisions of 69A read as under:- 69A. Wherein in any financial year the as....