SUNRISE REALCONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED ,ALWAR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-BHIWADI, BHIWADI

ITA 1307/JPR/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Sunrise Real Consultancy Pvt. Ltd., which appealed against the orders of the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer concerning the reassessment for the assessment year 2013-14. The primary issues were the additions made for unexplained investments and undisclosed income. The Tribunal examined the procedural validity of the reassessment, the nature of the investments, and the income from commissions. The Tribunal found that while the director's personal payment for the car purchase was valid, the company failed to adequately explain the nature of the commission income, leading to its treatment as undisclosed income. The Tribunal also addressed the penalty imposed for non-compliance with procedural requirements, reducing it in light of the circumstances presented.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 314177 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAUTAM SINGH CHOUDHARY
• Assessee Lawyers: S.L. PODDAR
• Keywords: Reassessment proceedings; Bad and doubtful debts; Depreciation; Unexplained investment; TDS; Non compliance; FORM 26AS
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 142(1); 69; 133(6); 44AD

Judgement Text

" vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos. 1307 & 1308/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2013-14 Sunrise Real Consultancy Pvt Limited Khasara No. 46 village saidpu, Op Ashiyana Angan Bhiwadi, Alwar cuke Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Bhiwadi, Bhiwadi LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAQCS0499E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. S. L. Poddar, Adv. jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT (Through V.C.) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 23/04/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 08/05/2025 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM There are two appeals filed by the assessee aggrieved from the order of the learned National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ for short CIT(A) ] both for the assessment year 2013-14 and dated 08.10.2024, which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 147 of the Income tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 22.02.2022 in quantum 2 ITA Nos. 1307 & 1308/JP/2024 Sunrise Real Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO proceeding and in the matter of levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) dated 18.08.2022. 2. In ITA No. 1307/JP/2024, the assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal; 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Learned Assessing Officer in passing the order u/s 147 read with section 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is void ab-initio and deserves to be quashed. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 16,56,453/- made by the Learned Assessing Officer u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of alleged unexplained investment for purchase of car. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 31,17,181/- made by the Learned Assessing Officer by treating the entire commission receipt of Rs. 31,17,181/- as undisclosed income of the assessee company without considering the submission of the assessee. 4. The assessee craves your indulgence to add amend or alter all or any grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing. 2.2 In ITA No. 1308/JP/2024, the assessee has taken following grounds of appeal: “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Learned Assessing Officer in imposing the penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 40,000/- imposed u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3 ITA Nos. 1307 & 1308/JP/2024 Sunrise Real Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 3. The assessee craves your indulgence to add amend or alter all or any grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 3. Since both the appeal is of the same assessee and related to same assessment year and argued on the same day we are deciding these two appeal by this common order. 4. First, we take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 1307/JP/2024. The brief facts as culled out from the records is that the assessee is company and did not filed its return of income for the year under consideration despite the fact that the assessee company has purchased Motor Vehicles of Rs. 35,46,667/- and also received commission / brokerage u/s 194H of the I.T. Act, 1961 amounting to Rs.31,17,181/- during the F.Y. 2012-13 relevant to A.Y. 2013-14. Hence the transaction of commission / brokerage remains undisclosed income and purchase of Motor Vehicles made by assessee company remains unexplained investment. The above information is as per NMS data/details under \"P-Z category\". Therefore, the case of the assessee company for A.Y. 2013-14 was reopened u/s 147 of the IT Act, 1961 with prior approval of Ld. Pr.CIT for reassessment of escaped income. Notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 08/05/2020 and duly served on the assessee to file 4 ITA Nos. 1307 & 1308/JP/2024 Sunrise Real Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO return of income. In response to notice U/s 148 of the assessee company did not file its return of income. Subsequently on 25/01/2021, the case was transferred to Regional e- Assessment Centre to complete the proceedings under Faceless Assessment Scheme, 2019. Statutory notices were issued on 01/02/2021,05/10/2021 and 09/12/2021 asking to explain the issue and submit the details called for. The assessee company neither filed its return of income in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act nor respond to any of the notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act. An attempt was also made to make assessee responsive by making reference to Verification Unit. Notice, sent by Verification Unit was duly served through Speed post on 08/01/2022, But, till date assessee did not respond. Therefore, keeping in view that the reassessment proceedings is going to be barred by limitation on 31/03/2022 and assessee company did not file return of income U/s 148 of the IT Act, 1961, reassessment is being completed u/s 144 of the Act under best judgement assessment based upon the material available on record. Records as available in NMS data/details under \"P-Z category” shows that the assessee company has purchased Motor Vehicles of Rs. 35,46,667/- and also received commission/brokerage u/s 194H of the I.T. Act, 1961 amounting to Rs.31,17,181/-during the F.Y. 2012-13 relevant to A.Y. 2013-14. Ld. AO issued a letter u/s 133(6) of the Act to Bird 5 ITA Nos. 1307 & 1308/JP/2024 Sunrise Real Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO Automotive Pvt. Ltd. from where the assessee company has purchased the motor vehicle. In response to the said letter, the Bird Automotive Pvt Ltd. has sent copy of invoice of car sold to Surnrise Real Consultacny Pvt.Ltd, copy of ledger account narrating mode of payment with payment details and copy of registration certificate. The reply of the Bird Automotive Pvt.Ltd. has been perused with reference to reason for reopening the case of the assessee company. Ld. AO on examination of document viz. sale invoice and transaction ledger submitted by Bird Automotive Pvt Ltd., noted that total purchase value of car and registration and other cost comes to Rs.40,96,817/- which assessee was to pay. Out of the same Rs. 16,56,453/- was paid by assessee out of its own source and balance amount was financed from BMW financial Services Pvt. Ltd. While scrutiny assessment, assessee did not submit any explanation regarding the source of investment made from its own account to the tune of Rs. 16,56,453/-. In absence of any such documentary evidence in support of source of investment made for purchase of motor vehicle, Rs 16,56,453/- was treated as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. 5. Aggrieved from the order of the National Faceless Assessment Center, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the 6 ITA Nos. 1307 & 1308/JP/2024 Sunrise Real Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO grounds so raised the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is reiterated here in below: 4. Appellate Findings: 4.1 Appeal Notices were issued to the assessee on 06.06.2024, 25.06.2024, 08.08.2024, 20.09.2024 fixing the case for 21.06.2024, 10.07.2024, 16.08.2024, 07.10.2024 respectively. The assessee has filed some documents on 17.08.2024. The appeal has been filed delayed as per column number 14 of Form 35. The reasons for this delay is that \"Dear Sir In my Family one relative has expired in February 2022 and also we did not receive communication on feb and on 24 August, we receive notices of penalty after that we went to income tax office bhiwadi and got that time has been expired and we need to appeal so please approve this condonation, thanks\". However, in the interest of justice the delay is condoned. 4.2 I have gone through the assessment order and record available. Brief facts of the case are that the reassessment of Sunrise Real consultancy Private Limited for A.Y. 2013-14, conducted under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee company did not file its return for A.Y. 2013-14, despite significant transactions, including- Purchase of a motor vehicle worth Rs. 35,46,667/-. Receipt of commission/brokerage amounting to Rs. 31,17,181 under Section 194H of the I.T. Act. Based on this information, the case was reopened under Section 147 with the approval of the Pr. CIT to reassess escaped income. A notice under Section 148 was issued on 08/05/2020, but the company did not file its return in response. Subsequently, notices under Section 142(1) were issued on 01/02/2021, 05/10/2021, and 09/12/2021, asking the company to explain its position. These notices were also ignored by the assessee. Efforts made by the Verification Unit to prompt a response, including a notice served via Speed Post on 08/01/2022, also did not result in any compliance. Due to non-compliance and with the reassessment deadline approaching on 31/03/2022, the reassessment was completed under Section 144 (best judgment assessment) based on available records. A motor vehicle purchase of Rs. 35,46,667. Commission/brokerage receipts amounting to Rs. 31,17,181 during F.Y. 2012-13. A letter under Section 133(6) was issued to Bird Automotive Pvt. Ltd., from which the vehicle was purchased. Bird Automotive confirmed the sale of the car to the assessee, providing details of the invoice, ledger account, and payment records. The total cost of the car, including registration, amounted to Rs. 40,96,817. Of this, Rs. 7 ITA Nos. 1307 & 1308/JP/2024 Sunrise Real Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 16,56,453 was paid by the assessee from its own sources, and the remainder was financed by BMW Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. Since the assessee did not explain the source of Rs. 16,56,453, this amount was treated as unexplained investment under Section 69 of the I.T. Act and added to the assessee's total income. The assessee commission/brokerage from: Berry Developers and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. - Rs. 25,52,624 (TDS of Rs. 2,55,262). Shimizu Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. - Rs. 5,55,557 (TDS of Rs. 58,240). INOX Air Products Pvt. Ltd. - Rs. 9,000 (TDS of Rs. 900). The assessee did not provide any explanation regarding the nature of these receipts, leading to the entire amount being treated as undisclosed income from business or profession. Based on the facts discussed, the total income of the assessee was assessed as follows: Unexplained investment: Rs. 16,56,453. Income from business/profession (undisclosed commission/brokerage): Rs. 31,17,181. Total assessed income: Rs. 47,73,634. 4.3 I have gone through the assessment order and record available. In the instant case, due to the assessee's non-compliance and failure to provide explanations for significant financial transactions, the total income was assessed at Rs. 47,73,634, including both unexplained investments and undisclosed commission income. The findings of the Assessing Officer (AO) seem well-founded given the circumstances. The reopening under Section 147 was justified due to the assessee's failure to file a return despite significant financial activities, such as the purchase of a motor vehicle and commission/brokerage receipts by the appellant company. The issuance of notices under Sections 148 and 142(1), followed by a best judgment assessment under Section 144, was also appropriate due to the lack of response from the assessee. The notices during assessment were sent to the appellant on email address [e-mail] which is Last Used E-Mail ID by current user. This is the same address on which appeal notices are been sent along with CC to [e-mail] and the 8 ITA Nos. 1307 & 1308/JP/2024 Sunrise Real Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO appeal notices have been replied by the appellant. On the basis of above facts, it is concluded that the appellant was well aware of the assessment proceedings but avoided compliance without any information to the AO. 4.4 The assessee did not explain the source of Rs. 16,56,453 used for the vehicle purchase, treating this amount as unexplained investment under Section 69 appears valid. During appeal proceedings, Sandeep Yadav, Director of the company has given his ITR for the assessment year 2012-13 filed on 30.12.2012 showing net income of Rs. 8,12,250/- and claiming that he had the above amount to fund the car. Presently, as per information under Section 133(6) collected by AO from Bird Automotive Pvt. Ltd., from which the vehicle was purchased. Bird Automotive confirmed the sale of the car to the assessee company the total value of the car was Rs. 40,96,817. Of this, Rs. 16,56,453 was paid by the assessee from its own sources, and the remainder was financed by BMW Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. Firstly, as per the information the car was purchased by the company SUNRISE REALCONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED and not by Sh. Sandeep Yadav. The company must be claiming depreciation on the same. Hence, the justification of the same to be financed by Sh. Sandeep Yadav through his individual income is not justified neither appellant company has given any other record of payment towards car in this regard. The appellant has also filed a copy of FIR dated 20.11.2013 filed by Sh. Sandeep Yadav with Thana Dharuhera, District Rewari, FIR no. 468. The following complaint. The same is pasted below: 9 ITA Nos. 1307 & 1308/JP/2024 Sunrise Real Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 4.5 As seen, the above complaint is about property papers, bank cheque book and bank papers. Nothing in the above papers is such whose duplicate cannot be obtained or accessible. Hence, the plea taken by appellant regarding non-product of books of account is not sustained and it is concluded that the assessee company has failed to explain the source of Rs. 16,56,453/- as a payment for car. AO's findings regarding unexplained investment is thus confirmed. 4.6 Similarly, as regards the commission/brokerage income of Rs. 31,17,181 is concerned the following information was available with AO. Berry Developers and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. - Rs. 25,52,624 (TDS of Rs. 2,55,262). 10 ITA Nos. 1307 & 1308/JP/2024 Sunrise Real Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO Shimizu Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. - Rs. 5,55,557 (TDS of Rs. 58,240). INOX Air Products Pvt. Ltd. – Rs. 9,000 (TDS of Rs. 900). The same information is also available in the system which is pasted below:- No details were provided during the assessment or appeal proceedings to dispute the AO's findings except Form no. 26AS during appeal proceeding, although the return of income for the relevant year was not filed by the appellant company, the nature of receipts is established from Form no. 26AS as commission income. In such situation when the return of income was never filed for the relevant year and audit report never submitted to the department on the portal facility before or after the due date of filling audit report by the assessee AO's findings in the assessment order are not disturbed. AO to give credit to prepaid taxes. 5. As a result, the appeal of the assessee dismissed. 6. Feeling dissatisfied with the finding so recorded by the ld. CIT(A), the assessee preferred the present appeal before this Tribunal. To support the grounds raised by the assessee, ld. AR of the assessee, has filed the written submissions in respect of the various grounds raised by the assessee and the same is reproduced herein below: “The assessee is a private limited company. The return could not be filed for the year under consideration as there is dispute between the directors and the business of the assessee company was closed due to heavy bad debts. Subsequently, when re-assessment proceedings were initiated the notice u/s 148 has not been served upon the assessee company as the mail address given in portal was related counsel of the assessee and he has not informed about any 11 ITA Nos. 1307 & 1308/JP/2024 Sunrise Real Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO notice to the assessee as both the directors were not in the contact of the counsel. The Learned Assessing Officer has completed the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the IT Act on 22.02.2022 determining total income at Rs. 47,73,634/- by making the following additions - (i) Addition of Rs. 16,56,453/- made by the Learned Assessing Officer u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of alleged unexplained investment for purchase of car. (ii) Addition of Rs. 31,17,181/- made by the Learned Assessing Officer by treating the entire commission receipt of Rs. 31,17,181/- as undisclosed income Aggrieved with the order of the learned Assessing Officer the assesee preferred appeal before the Learned CIT(A). The Learned CIT(A) has passed the order by confirming the addition made by the Learned AO without considering the documents submitted before him. Aggrieved with the order of the learned CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal and the individual grounds of appeal are discussed hereunder- Ground No. 1 – In the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Learned Assessing Officer in passing the order u/s 147 read with section 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is void ab-initio and deserves to be quashed. Not pressed. Ground No. 2 – In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 16,56,453/- made by the Learned Assessing Officer u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of alleged unexplained investment for purchase of car. 1. Facts of the case – The assessee company has purchased Motor Vehicles of Rs. 35,46,667/- and also received commission/brokerage u/s 194H of the I.T. Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 31,17,181/- during the F.Y. 2012-13 relevant to A.Y. 2013-14. The Learned Assessing Officer has issued a notice under section 133(6) to Bird Automotive Pvt. Ltd., from which the vehicle was purchased. Bird Automotive Private Limited confirmed the sale of the car to the assessee, providing details of the invoice, ledger account, and payment records. The total cost of the car, including registration, amounted to Rs. 40,96,817/-. Out of Rs. 40,96,817/- the assessee company has paid Rs. 16,56,453/- from its own sources, and the remaining balance was financed by BMW Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. Before the Learned CIT(A) the assessee has contended that it was pleaded by the director Shri Sandeep Yadav from his own bank account out of his own income. Shri Sandeep Yadav is assessed to income tax with the same ITO and his PAN is ABRPY1119R and duly reflected in his record and income tax file. Copy of bank statement is placed on paper book page no. 3 to 11 and income tax return of 12 ITA Nos. 1307 & 1308/JP/2024 Sunrise Real Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO Sandeep Yadav is placed on paper book page no. 24 to 35. Shri Sandeep Yadav has declared the substantial income in his income tax return. Therefore, the investment of Rs. 16,56,453/- is duly disclosed and accounted for in the books of assessee company as well as in the personal account of director Shri Sandeep Yadav. Therefore, the addition deserves to be deleted. It is submitted that the assessee has well explained the source of purchase of car. The payment of Rs. 16,31,332/- was made directly by Shri Sandeep Yadav (Director of the assessee company) from his bank account No. 00348380000213 to the Car Company M/s Bird Automotive Private Limited on 31/03/2013 vide cheque no. 378521. The same amount was entered in the books of assesee company as loan taken from director Shri Sandeep Yadav. The car was purchased in the name of assessee company M/s Sunrise Realconsultancy Pvt Ltd. A copy of bill and registration certificate is available on paper book page no. 1 and 2. The director Shri Sandeep Yadav has also established his creditworthiness by submitting his ITR during the course of appellate proceedings. A copy of bank statement of Shri Sandeep Yadav reflecting this transaction is enclosed at paper book page no. 3 to 11. (Entry of payment is reflected on page no. 11) These facts have not been considered by the Learned Assessing Officer as well the Learned CIT(A). Otherwise, the source of investment is well established. The addition made by the Learned Assessing Officer deserves to be deleted. 2. Depreciation has been claimed by the assessee company – It is submitted that the Learned CIT(A) has also observed in this appellate order that the company must be claiming depreciation on the car purchase. In this regard it is submitted that the assessee company has also claimed deprecation of Rs. 3,09,849.90 on Car purchased for a consideration of Rs. 41,31,332/- during the year under consideration as per INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. A copy of depreciation chart is available on paper book page no. 12. Hence the Learned CIT(A) has confirmed the addition without going thought the deprecation chart submitted by the Learned Assessing Officer. 3. Provision of section 69 is not applicable – The Learned Assessing Officer has made the addition under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The provision of section 69 is as under – Unexplained investments. 8069. Where in the financial year immediately preceding the assessment year the assessee has made investments which are not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of the investments or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the 80a[Assessing] Officer, satisfactory, the value of the investments may be deemed to be the income of the assessee of such financial year. 13 ITA Nos. 1307 & 1308/JP/2024 Sunrise Real Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO From the perusal of this section, it is revealed that the section 69 is applicable when the assessee has made investments which are not recorded in the books of account. Here the assessee has disclosed this transaction in its books of accounts under the head fixed assets and also claimed depreciation on it. Hence the provision of section 69 is not applicable even distantly. The addition made by the Learned Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Learned CIT(A) deserves to be deleted. Ground No. 3 – In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 31,17,181/- made by the Learned Assessing Officer by treating the entire commission receipt of Rs. 31,17,181/- as undisclosed income of the assessee company without considering the submission of the assessee. The Learned Assessing Officer has made the addition of Rs. 31,17,181/- by treating the entire commission receipt of Rs. 31,17,181/- shown in 26AS. The Learned CIT(A) has confirmed this addition by mentioning that \"no details were provided during the assessment or appeal proceedings to dispute the AO's findings except Form no. 26AS during appeal proceeding, although the return of income for the relevant year was not filed by the appellant company, the nature of receipts is established from Form no. 26AS as commission income. In such situation when the return of income was never filed for the relevant year and audit report never submitted to the department on the portal facility before or after the due date of filling audit report by the assessee AO’s findings in the assessment order are not disturbed.\" In this regard it is submitted that the assessee could not filed its financial statement before the Learned Assessing Officer due to non-service of notice u/s 148 or 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. But during the course of appellate proceedings the assessee submitted computation of income, its financial statements including Balance Sheet, Profit & Loss A/c and its annexure. In the Profit & Loss A/c the assessee has shown total Commission and Brokerage Receipts of Rs. 37,62,021.65 which is higher than Rs. 31,17,181/- added by the Learned Assessing Officer. The assessee has also claimed expenditures of Rs. 30,76,646.97 and shown Net Profit of Rs. 6,85,734.68 as income of the assessee company for the year under consideration. Copy of Financial Statements including Balance Sheet, Profit & Loss A/c and its annexure is available on paper book page no. 13 to 23. On the income of Rs. 6,85,734.68 the tax was payable of Rs. 1,12,393.64. The assessee has also claimed credit of TDS deducted of Rs. 3,14,402/- and refund of Rs. 2,02,008.36 after deduction of 14 ITA Nos. 1307 & 1308/JP/2024 Sunrise Real Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO tax. All these were submitted before the Learned CIT(A) but the Learned CIT(A) has not considered the same and confirmed the addition made by the Learned Assessing Officer. It is settled position of law that entire receipts cannot be taxed as income of the assessee. The Learned Assessing Officer or the Learned CIT(A) should have been applied a reasonable NP rate. How a business can run without any expenditure. It is necessary to incur various expenditures to run a business and office. In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Williamson Financial Services & Ors (SLP(C) 2275/2007, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that \"It is important to bear in mind that under section 4 the levy is on \"total income\" of the assessee computed in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the Income Tax Act. What is chargeable to tax under the Income Tax Act is the profit and gains of a year. What is chargeable to tax under the Income Tax Act is not the gross receipts, but income. Under the Income Tax Act, the tax is on income and not on gross receipts\" The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax- XII vs. Subodh Gupta [2015] 54 taxmann.com 343 (Del) held that in absence of material to show net profit rate, presumptive net profit rate of 8% as stipulated in section 44AD could be taken for estimation of income. In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Balchand Ajitkumar 263 ITR 610 (2003), the Hon'ble MP High Court held that total sale cannot be regarded as the profit of the assessee. In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. President Industries (2002) 258 ITR 0654, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court held that it cannot be a matter of an argument that the amount of sales by itself cannot represent the income of the assessee who has not disclosed the sales. The sales only represented the price received by the seller of the goods for the acquisition of which it has already incurred the cost. Therefore, your honour is requested to delete the addition made by the Learned Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Learned CIT(A). Ground No. 4 – The assessee craves your indulgence to add amend or alter all or any grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing. Not pressed. The Hon'ble Tribunal is requested to consider the submissions and case laws cited by the assessee and decide the appeal in favour of the assessee by deleting the addition and oblige. 15 ITA Nos. 1307 & 1308/JP/2024 Sunrise Real Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 7. To support the contention so raised in the written submission reliance was placed on the following evidence / records: Sr. No. Particulars Page No. 1. Copy of bill for purchase of Car and certificate for registration 1-2 2. Copy of bank statement of Shri Sandeep Yadav reflecting this transaction 3-11 3. Copy of depreciation chart as per IT Act 1961 12 4. Copy of computation of income 13 5. Copy of Financial Statements including Balance Sheet, Profit & Loss A/c and its annexure 14-23 6. Copy of income tax return of director Shri Sandeep Yadav 24-35 8. The ld. AR of the assessee submitted that lower authority did not appreciate the facts of the present case. It is not under dispute that the assessee company has taken the loan and down payment made by Director of the Company. Ld. AR of the assessee vides an affidavit of Mr. Sandeep Yadav wherein he submitted as under:- 16 ITA Nos. 1307 & 1308/JP/2024 Sunrise Real Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 17 ITA Nos. 1307 & 1308/JP/2024 Sunrise Real Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO Based on that affidavit, ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the addition made for an amount of Rs. 16,56,453/- is required to be deleted. As regards the commission income of Rs. 31,17,181/-. The assessee had already recorded that transactions under the total revenue of Rs. 62,021.65 and is duly reflected in the profit and loss account. Therefore, there is no need to make separate additions. 9. Per contra, the ld. DR relied upon the orders of lower authorities and submitted that affidavit submitted by the assessee as serving document and car was purchased by the company and therefore, ld. DR relied upon the lower authorities. The issue raised by the assessee in ITA No. 1308/JP/2024 is related to the levy of penalty on the amount added in the quantum proceeding. 10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed on record. Vide ground no 2 the assessee challenges the addition of Rs. 16,56,453/- made by ld. AO u/s 69 of the Act on account of alleged unexplained investment for purchase of car and the same was sustained by the ld. CIT(A). The bench noted that during the course of hearing the ld. AR of the assessee submitted a bank statement of Shri Sandeep Yadav 18 ITA Nos. 1307 & 1308/JP/2024 Sunrise Real Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO wherein payment of Rs. 16,31,332/- made to Bird Automative P. Ltd appears to be paid and debited to his account [ page 11 of the paper book]. Thus, once the initial payment is duly sourced by the director the same amount cannot be added in the hands of the assessee, and the director has expressed shown the payment in this book and he is also regularly assessed to tax. Based on this fact being clear we see no reason to sustain the addition and therefore, ground no. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed. 11. Vide ground no. 3 the assessee challenged the addition of Rs. 31,17,181/- made by the ld. AO by treating the entire commission receipt of Rs. 31,17,181/- as undisclosed income of the assessee company without considering the submission of the assessee. The brief fact to this case the assessee has not filed the ITR and has purchased the car therefore, the case of the assessee was reopened. As the assessee has not filed the ITR the ld. AO based on the Form 26AS added a sum of Rs. 31,17,181/- as income of the assessee. Record reveals that the assessee has claimed that they have not received the notice u/s. 148 of the Act and that of the section 142(1) of the Act and thereby the assessment order was passed ex-parte. When the matter carried before the ld. CIT(A) he has confirmed this addition by 19 ITA Nos. 1307 & 1308/JP/2024 Sunrise Real Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO mentioning that \"no details were provided during the assessment or appeal proceedings to dispute the AO's findings except Form no. 26AS during appeal proceeding, although the return of income for the relevant year was not filed by the appellant company, the nature of receipts is established from Form no. 26AS as commission income. In such situation when the return of income was never filed for the relevant year and audit report never submitted to the department on the portal facility before or after the due date of filling audit report by the assessee AO’s findings in the assessment order are not disturbed.\" Before us the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee in the appellate proceedings submitted computation of income, its financial statements including Balance Sheet, Profit & Loss A/c and its annexure. In the Profit & Loss A/c the assessee has shown total Commission and Brokerage Receipts of Rs. 37,62,021.65 which is higher than Rs. 31,17,181/- added by the Learned Assessing Officer. The assessee has also claimed expenditures of Rs. 30,76,646.97 and shown Net Profit of Rs. 6,85,734.68 as income of the assessee company for the year under consideration. Copy of Financial Statements including Balance Sheet, Profit & Loss A/c and its annexure is available on paper book page no. 13 to 23. On the income of Rs. 6,85,734.68 the tax was payable of Rs. 20 ITA Nos. 1307 & 1308/JP/2024 Sunrise Real Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 1,12,393.64. The assessee has also claimed credit of TDS deducted of Rs. 3,14,402/- and refund of Rs. 2,02,008.36 after deduction of tax and thus as such there is no loss to the revenue. All these contention were raised before the Learned CIT(A) but the Learned CIT(A) has not considered the same and confirmed the addition made by the Learned Assessing Officer. It is settled position of law that entire receipts cannot be taxed as income of the assessee. The Learned Assessing Officer or the Learned CIT(A) should have been applied a reasonable NP rate. How a business can run without any expenditure. It is necessary to incur various expenditures to run a business and office and that too of a corporate. The bench noted that the assessee has against the receipt of Rs. 37,62,021/- [ more than what is added based on the Form 26AS ] shown net profit at Rs. 6,85,374/- which in terms of percentage comes to 18.22 %. Considering the fact that the assessee is corporate entity and major expenditure claimed is for salaries and wages and other corporate expenditure. It is also a fact that though the company is suppose to file the ITR but due to dispute between the director the same could not be filed. Looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the cash we feel in the interest of justice that the income of the assessee be considered @ 20 % of the total receipt as against the 18.22 % reflected in the profit and loss account. Thus, ld. AO shall charge the assessee on a 21 ITA Nos. 1307 & 1308/JP/2024 Sunrise Real Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO income of Rs. 7,52,405/- as income [ 20 % on Rs. 37,62,021/- ]. Based on this observation ground no. 3 is partly allowed. Ground no. 1 being technical and since we have considered the appeal of the assessee on its merits this technical ground become academic. Ground no. 4 general does not require any finding. In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no. 1307/JP/2024 is partly allowed. 12. Vide ITA no. 1308/JP/2024 the assessee challenges levy of penalty of Rs. 40,000/- as per provision of section 271(1)(b) of the Act. The bench noted that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed this appeal of the assessee by observing that since the quantum addition was confirmed by him the penalty levied was also confirmed. The Bench has heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. As regards the appeal of the assessee relating to the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act the bench noted that there was dispute between the directors and the assessee filed an FIR and therefore, the assessment order was passed ex-parte and assessee claim that the notice u/s. 148 and that of notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act was not served upon the assessee and thereafter, the ex-parte order the assessee filed an appeal and represented their case and therefore, the 22 ITA Nos. 1307 & 1308/JP/2024 Sunrise Real Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO ld. AR of the assessee prayed to have lenient view of the matter. Considering the over all facts as presented in the present appeal of penalty as well as that of in the quatum appeal of the assessee the bench is of the considered view that though there were non-compliance of four notices but the same should have been considered as one notice not served has reasons for non compliance of the other notice and therefore, we feel that the assessee should pay for one default u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act for an amount of Rs. 10,000/- only. Based on these observations the appeal of the assessee in ITA no. 1308/JP/2024 stands partly allowed. 13. In the result, the both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 08/05/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼ Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh ½ ¼ jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 08/05/2025 23 ITA Nos. 1307 & 1308/JP/2024 Sunrise Real Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO *Ganesh Kumar, Sr. PS vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Sunrise Real Consultancy Pvt. Ltd., Alwar 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward-Bhiwadi, Bhiwadi 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A) 5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA Nos. 1307 & 1308/JP/2024) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asst. Registrar "