Sri. Jayakumar Reddy, Bangalore V. ITO, Bangalore

ITA 1453/BANG/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9420 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 22-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 23-10-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: V SRINIVASAN

Judgement Text

ITA.1453/BANG/2015 PAGE - 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH 'B', BANGALORE SHRI. ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A NO.1453/BANG/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05) SHRI. JAYAKUMAR REDDY, GANIGARAHALLI VILLAGE, CHIKKABANAVARA POST, BENGALURU - 560090 .. APPELLANT PAN : AEXPR8840J V. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), BENGALURU .. RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI. V. SRINIVASAN, CA REVENUE BY : SHRI. BIPIN C. N, JCIT HEARD ON : 11.07.2016 PRONOUNCED ON : 26.08.2016 O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL IS AGGRIEVED ON AN ADDITION OF RS.15 LAKHS MADE BY AO AS UNACCOUNTED COMMISSION WHICH WAS CONF IRMED BY THE CIT (A). ITA.1453/BANG/2015 PAGE - 2 02. FACTS ARE THAT ASSESSEE A COMMISSION AGENT HAD FILED A RETURN FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.3,86,160/-. THERE WAS A REOPENING FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR AN D A NOTICE WAS ISSUED ON 23.03.2011. ASSESSEE THERE UPON SUBMITTED TO TH E AO THAT ORIGINAL RETURN FILED COULD BE CONSIDERED AS ONE FILED IN PU RSUANCE TO THE NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT IN S HORT). DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT WAS NOTED BY THE AO TH AT INVESTIGATION WING OF THE DEPARTMENT HAD CONDUCTED SEARCH IN THE CASE OF ONE RMP GUTKHA GROUP ON 21.01.2010. AS PER THE AO, SEIZED RECORD DISCLOSED TRANSACTIONS RELATING TO THE ASSESSEE AS WELL. FROM THE SEIZED RECORD, AO CAME TO A CONCLUSION THAT ASSESSEE HAD ACTED AS A COMMISSION AGENT OF RMC GUTKHA GROUP CONTROLLED BY M/S. DHARIWAL INDUSTRIES. AS P ER THE AO, SOHANRAJ MEHTA OF M/S. DHARIWAL INDUSTRIES HAD CONFIRMED SEL LING OF PRODUCTS OF RMD GUTKHA GROUP THROUGH VARIOUS PERSONS FOR WHICH COMMISSION WAS PAID. ASSESSEE ON 13.07.2011 HOWEVER STATED THAT H E HAD RECEIVED ONLY A SUM OF RS.50,000/- IN TWO TRANCHES OF RS.25,000/- E ACH AS BROKERAGE AND COMMISSION AND THAT TOO FOR ARRANGING A BUILDING FO R RENT AND SALE OF A SITE. AS PER THE ASSESSEE HE HAD RECEIVED NOTHING OVER A SUM OF RS.50,000/- FROM SHRI. SHOHAN RAJ MEHTA OF M/S. DHARIWAL INDUSTRIES. HOWEVER AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT ASSESSEE HAD HIMSELF SIGNED A DOCU MENT WHICH CLEARLY ITA.1453/BANG/2015 PAGE - 3 PROVED THAT ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED A SUM OF RS.15 LA KHS AS COMMISSION. AS PER THE AO SINCE ASSESSEE HAD HIMSELF STATED THAT T HE SIGNATURE WAS HIS OWN, HE COULD NOT NOW TURN BACK AND ARGUE THAT THE COMMISSION WAS NOT RECEIVED. HE MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.15 LAKHS. 03. IN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE, CIT (A) CONFIRMED TH E ADDITION. 04. NOW BEFORE US, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE W AS QUESTIONED TWICE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. AS PE R THE LD. AR, THERE WAS NO RECORD WITH THE REVENUE TO SHOW THAT ANY AMOUNT OTHER THAN RS.50,000/- WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. AS PER THE LD. AR TH ERE WAS NO CREDIT OF ANY SUM COMING IN THE VICINITY OF RS.15 LAKHS DURING TH E PERIOD 21.01.2005 TO 21.08.2009 IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. THERE WAS NO QUERY RAISED ON THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHETHER THE SUM OF RS.15 LAKHS ALLEGED TO HAV E BEEN PAID BY M/S. DHARIWAL INDUSTRIES WAS RECEIVED BY HIM. ASSESSEE HAD ALL ALONG STATED THAT THE ONLY AMOUNT HE HAD RECEIVED WAS RS.50,000/ - IN TWO TRANCHES OF RS.25,000/- EACH. AS PER THE LD. AR ASSESSEE HAD A CTED AS A BROKER FOR ONE OF THE DIRECTORS OF M/S. DHARIWAL INDUSTRIES AND TH E BROKERAGE RECEIVED BY HIM WAS ONLY RS.3 LAKHS. FURTHER ACCORDING TO HIM THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE BROUGHT IN BY LOWER AUTHORITIES TO PROVE THAT ASSES SEE HAD RECEIVED RS.15 ITA.1453/BANG/2015 PAGE - 4 LAKHS FROM M/S. DHARIWAL INDUSTRIES OR ANY PERSONS CONNECTED TO THE SAID FIRM. 05. PER CONTRA LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 06. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS. CASE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT ONE OF THE RECORDS SEIZED DURIN G THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN THE CASE OF RMD GUTKHA GROUP WAS A VOUCHER IN WHICH SIGNATURE OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED. AS PER THE ASSESSEE HE HAD NOT RECEIVED ANY SUM OF RS.15 LAKHS, MENTIONED IN THE SAID RECORD OF SOHAN RAJ MEHTA. CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT HE HAD RECEIVED ONLY A SUM OF RS.50,000/- IN TWO TRANCHES OF RS.25,000/- EACH AND NOTHING OTHER THAN THAT. THE VOUCHER SIGNED BY THE ASSESSEE IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER : ITA.1453/BANG/2015 PAGE - 5 07. ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE SIGNATURE WA S NOT THAT OF HIS. IF THE ASSESSEE WANTED TO REBUT THE RECEIPT OF THE AMO UNT FROM M/S. DHARIWAL INDUSTRIES AND SOHAN RAJ MEHTA, THEN IT WAS REQUIRE D FOR HIM TO PRODUCE POSITIVE EVIDENCE. EXCEPT FOR STATING THAT HE HAD RECEIVED NOTHING MORE THAN RS.50,000/- IN TWO TRANCHES OF RS.25,000/- EAC H FROM SOHAN RAJ MEHTA, ASSESSEE COULD NOT REBUT THE VOUCHER REPRODU CED ABOVE WHERE HE HIMSELF HAD SIGNED THE VOUCHER CLEARLY STATES THAT ASSESSEE WAS PAID A SUM OF RS.15 LAKHS. ASSESSEE HAVING SIGNED THE VOUCHER HIMSELF HE CANNOT TURN BACK AND SAY THAT HE HAD NOT RECEIVED THE AMOUNT ME NTIONED THEREIN. I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE ADDITION WAS RIGHTLY DONE B Y THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. I DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE. 08. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2016. SD/- (ABRAHAM P GEORGE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MCN ITA.1453/BANG/2015 PAGE - 6 COPY TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) 5. DR 6. GF, ITAT, BANGALORE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR