SRI. JAYAKUMAR REDDY,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

Assessee in this appeal is aggrieved on an addition of Rs.15 lakhs made by AO as unaccounted commission which was confirmed by the CIT (A).

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 and a notice was issued on 23.03.2011. Assessee there upon submitted to the AO that original return filed could be considered as one filed in pursuance to the notice u/s.148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ in short). During the course of assessment proceedings it was noted by the AO that 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 per the AO, Sohanraj Mehta of M/s. Dhariwal Industries had confirmed selling of products of RMD Gutkha group through various persons for which commission was paid. Assessee on 13.07.2011 however stated that he had received only a sum of Rs.50,000/- in two tranches of Rs.25,000/- each as brokerage and commission and that too for arranging a building for rent and sale of a site.

In appeal by the assessee, CIT (A) confirmed the addition.

Now before us, Ld. AR submitted that assessee was questioned twice during the course of assessment proceedings. As per 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 there was no credit of any sum coming in the vicinity of Rs.15 lakhs during the 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 have been paid by M/s.

Per contra Ld. DR supported the orders of lower authorities.

I have heard the rival contentions and perused the orders. Case of the Revenue is that one of the records seized during 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 :

Assessee has not disputed that the signature was not that of his. If the assessee wanted to rebut the receipt of the amount from M/s. Dhariwal Industries and Sohan Raj Mehta, then it was required 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/- each from Sohan Raj Mehta, assessee could not rebut the voucher reproduced 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 mentioned therein. I am of the opinion that the addition was rightly done by the lower authorities. I do not find any reason to interfere.

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed.