JITENDRA UMARSHI GANATRA,2201, TRIDEV TOWERS, BHAKTI MARG, MULUND WEST vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1666/MUM/2021Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2022AY 2018-193 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the source of the commission income was explained and TDS was deducted, it could not be considered unexplained income. Therefore, taxing it under Section 115BBE was unjustified.

What were the facts?

The assessee received commission income from Bhakti Enterprises, on which TDS was deducted. The lower authorities treated this income as unexplained and taxed it at a higher rate under Section 115BBE.

What were the issues?

Whether commission income, with a explained source and TDS deduction, can be treated as unexplained income and taxed at a higher rate under Section 115BBE.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 115BBE,Section 68,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH MUMBAI

Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Om Prakash Kant

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH MUMBAI Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jitendra Umarshi Ganatra…………….……..….…..………………….……Appellant 2201, Tridev Towers, Bhakti Marg, Mulund West-400080. [PAN:AACPG8936D] vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi...……………..…..Respondent Appearances by: Shri Prakash Iyer, appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri SN Kabra, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : May 19, 2022 Date of pronouncing the order : May 19, 2022 ORDER Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 18.08.2021 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The assessee in this appeal has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1. Learned CIT(Appeals) has contended in his order that Survey Operations was made in firm Bhakti Enterprises, Whereas the Survey Operations was conducted in La Lavado Fabricka another firm.

2. Learned A.O./CIT (Appeals) has erred in computing tax at the rate prescribed u/s 115BBE on regular normal Commission income of Rs.25,00,000/- from Bhakti Enterprises.

3. Learned A.O./CIT (Appeals) has erred in treating normal current income offered in return of income as income liable at higher rate of tax.

4. Learned A.O/CIT (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that this is a regular income received from partnership firm & not the undisclosed income as held by him.

5. Looking at above facts we request your honour to kindly accept the return of income filed and assessed at the normal rate of tax.

More judgments on Section 115BBE

All 8,662 judgments and leading authorities on Section 115BBE →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →