DHARMEN DOSHI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(2)(1), MUMBAI

Order Under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JM: 1. This appeal u/s 253 of the Income-tax Act (‘Act’) is directed by assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [for short ‘the CIT(A)] -13 Mumbai dated 14.07.2014 for Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11. The only substantial ground of appeal raised by the assessee is “ Whether the ld. CIT(A) erred in treating Commission Income of Rs. 7,50,000/- as “Income from other sources” instead of “Business Income”.

2. Brief facts of the case related with the grounds of appeal as gathered from the record of the case are that the assessee filed return of income for relevant AY on 27.09.2010 declaring total income of Rs. 11,77,670/-. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 25.03.2013. In the assessment, the Assessing Officer (AO) besides the other addition and disallowance treated the Commission Income of Rs. 7,50,000/- as “Income from other sources” instead income from “Business & Profession”. On appeal the assessee no relief was granted. Thus, further aggrieved the present appeal is filed before us.

2 Shri Dharmen Doshi 3. None appeared on behalf of assessee when the case came up for hearing on 23.11.2006 despite waiting for sufficient time. The perusal of record reveals that assessee was served the notice of appeal for 05.05.16 and again for 23.11.2016. Neither the assessee nor his representative appeared to substantiate the grounds of appeal raised before us. We left no option except to proceed further and to hear the submission of the ld. DR for Revenue. The Ld. DR for Revenue argued that in the return of income, the assessee has shown income of Rs. 7,50,000/- on account of Commission receipt for rendering services of selling of chemicals from M/s Amrit Chem. The assessee was asked to explain and shown the documentary evidence with regard to the appointment as a Commission Agent of M/s Amrit Chem. A notice u/s 133(6) was also sent to M/s Amrit Chem in response to the notice, a reply was received from BPL Associates, Company-Secretary’s Firm on 13.12.2012 contending therein that assessee is dealing as Commission Agent of M/s Amrit Chem. The assessee was asked to file supporting evidence. As no supporting evidence was filed, the AO treated the commission income as “Income from other sources” instead of “Income from Business & Profession”. The ld DR for revenue would argue that the appeal filed by the assessee is liable to be dismissed.

4. We have considered the rival contention of the parties and gone through the orders of authorities below. We have noticed that the assessee has not filed any documentary evidence before the AO to substantiate his claim that he received the amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- as a Commission Income. As no documentary evidence was filed before the AO. Thus, the AO treated the income from as “Income from other sources”. During the first appellate stage, the assessee made the similar contention without filing any documentary evidence. The assessee also contended that in the past AYs, the Commission Income has been treated as “Business Income” and the AO has no reason to change the head of income from said receipt. The ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee has no office premises for carrying out the activity of a Commission Agent nor any details of Commission Agent has been furnished. Thus, the ld. CIT (A) upholds the finding of AO.

5. We have given careful consideration to the orders of authorities below. During the assessment preceding no documentary evidence was filed to substantiate his claim thus the AO treated the commission income under the head ‘income from other 3 Shri Dharmen Doshi sources’. The ld CIT (A) also examined the case of assessee from different angles and concluded that the assessee has no office premises to deal in such activity nor the assessee claimed any expenses. Even before us, the assessee has not filed even single documentary evidence to substantiate his claim nor come forward to make the submission before us. Hence, we do not have any reason to deviate from the concurrent finding of authorities below.