Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, MUMBAI
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “A” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य एविं श्री एम बालगणेश, लेखा दस्य के मक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI M BALAGANESH, AM आयकर अपील सुं./ (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2013-14) Avanti Resources Pvt. Ltd. The Income Tax officer 413, Autumn Gurve, Ward 1(2), Indore Lokhandwala Complex, Opp Lokhandwala Foundation बनाम/ School, Akurli Road, Vs. Kandivali (E), Mumbai- 400 101 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./PAN No. AACCA9146E अपीलार्थी की ओर े / Appellant by : Shri Bhupendra Shah, AR प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े / Respondent by : Shri Michael Jerald, DR ुिवाई की तारीख / Date of hearing: 10.12.2019 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date of pronouncement : 12.12.2019 आदेश / O R D E R महावीर ससुंह, न्याययक सदस्य/ PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM:
This appeal by assessee is arising out of order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)]-1, Indore [in short CIT(A)], in Appeal No. IT-47/2016-17/163 vide dated 16.02.2018. The Assessment was framed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Mumbai (in short ITO/ AO) for the A.Y. 2013- 14 vide order dated 14.03.2016 under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).
2 | P a g e Avanti Resources P. ltd.
2. The only issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the addition made by AO of commission on purchase of sales at ₹3,45,96,246/- being commission at the rate of 1% on purchase and sales. For this assessee has raised the following two effective grounds: - “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) in confirming above additions even though the PAN of the Appellant lies in Mumbai.
In the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in law, the learned AO erred in adding ₹34596246/- by way of alleged commission @1% on purchase and sales both by overlooking the details filed and only on the basis of presumption and surmises.
In the facts and the circumstances of the case and also in law, the learned AO erred in levying interest under section 234B and C and also initiating penalty under section 271(1)(c).”