Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Dharmendra A Babel, Mumbai vs Dcit Cen Cir 8(3), Mumbai on 5 November, 2018
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "D" BENCH, MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM
ITA No. 1967/Mum/2017
(Assessment Year: 2012-13)
Shri Dharmendra A. Babel Dy. CIT, Central Circle-8(3),
RMR & Co. (Chartered Accountants) Room No. 676/A, Ayakar Bhavan,
425, The Summit Business Bay, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020
Near 'WEH' Metro Station, Vs.
Prakashwadi, Andheri (E),
Mumbai-400 093
PAN/GIR No. ADVPJ 5757 F
(Appellant) : (Respondent)
Appellant by : None
Respondent by : Shri Chaitanya Anjaria
Date of Hearing : 23.10.2018
Date of Pronouncement : 05.11.2018
ORDER
Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai ('ld.CIT(A) for short) dated 15.12.2016 and pertains to the assessment year (A.Y.) 2012-13.
2. The grounds of appeal read as under:
1. The Hon'ble CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1,87,41,330/- as commission @ 0.5% of sales.
2. The Hon'ble CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.12,00,000/- as 'unexplained expenditure' for appellant personal expenditure. 2 ITA No. 1967/Mum/2017
3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee belongs to Surat Diamond group. A search and survey operation u/s. 132 of the Act was conducted on Surat Diamond group. A survey u/s. 133A in the case of the assessee was conducted on 05.10.2013. A statement of the assessee was recorded u/s. 131 of the Act on 05.10.2013. In his statement, the assessee stated that his proprietorship concern M/s. Rajan Gems was actually a paper concern and had provided accommodation entries. On the basis of the statement, the Assessing Officer (A.O. for short) rejected the books of the assessee.
The A.O. proceeded to compute 0.5% of the turnover of Rs.3,96,88,26,976/- as income of the assessee resulting in commission income of Rs.1,98,44,135/-.
4. Upon the assessee's appeal, the ld. CIT(A) noted that the assessee has submitted that the income tax authorities had issued threats and coercion. The ld. CIT(A) found that there was no evidence for the same. He further noted that subsequently there was no response from the assessee. He confirmed the order passed by the A.O.
5. Further the ld. CIT(A) directed an enhancement of Rs.12 lacs on the ground that there was no sufficient withdrawal for personal expenditure. He noted that the assessee had not responded to the enhancement notice.
6. Against the above order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 3 ITA No. 1967/Mum/2017
7. We have heard the ld. Departmental Representative. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. In our considered opinion, the issues raised can be adjudicated by hearing the ld. Departmental Representative and perusing the records. We note that the assessee has himself accepted that he was indulging in providing bogus accommodating entry. In these circumstances, the books were rejected and 0.5% of the turnover was estimated as commission income of the assessee. Except for submitting that the assessee has made the statement due to threats and coercion, no evidence has been brought by the assessee on record in support of the contention. We note that the ld. CIT(A) has rightly noted that the assessee's statement that he had accepted that he is bogus accommodation entry provider and the same was done under coercion is clearly an afterthought.
8. We find that the turnover claimed by the assessee is Rs.3,96,88,26,976/-. On the premise that the turnover represent bogus accommodation entry provided by the assessee, 0.5% thereof amounting to Rs.1,98,44,135/- has been computed as assessee's commission income. In absence of any cogent evidence brought by the assessee to rebut the same, we do not find any infirmity in the same. Rather, we find that the orders of the authorities below are rather reasonable. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the orders of the authorities below. Hence, we confirm the same. 4 ITA No. 1967/Mum/2017
9. In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 05.11.2018 Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravish Sood) (Shamim Yahya)
Judicial Member Accountant Member
Mumbai; Dated : 05.11.2018
Roshani, Sr. PS
Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent
3. The CIT(A)
4. CIT - concerned
5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6. Guard File
BY ORDER,
(Dy./Asstt. Registrar)
ITAT, Mumbai