For Full Access To All Latest Judgments on Income Tax
Click Here To Subscribe Now
Take a tour of our Income-Tax Library

n the instant case, revenue is in appeal against the order of CIT wherein CIT has deleted the addition of undisclosed income amounting to 47,15,000/- as estimated on hawala business of transporting cash from one place to another. The revenue also alleged that that the CIT has erred in ignoring the principal of extrapolation of income as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Eusafali 90ITR 271. Held that—The AO has made protective addition in the hands of the assessee towards estimated commission income derived from hawala transactions on the ground that certain incriminating materials were found in the premises of the assessee and further, one of the employees has stated that the company is involved in hawala transactions. It is also an admitted fact that substantive addition made in the hands of Shri Vishal Kalantri has attained finality in view of the order of ITAT, where the addition made by the AO has been examined in the light of incriminating material found during the course of search. Once, the substantive addition has been considered by the appellate authorities in the hands of Shri Vishal Kalantri, the protective addition made towards commission income in the hands of the assessee could not be sustained. The Ld.CIT(A), after considering relevant submissions, has rightly deleted addition made in the hands of the assessee for all assessment years under consideration. We do not find any error in the findings of Ld.CIT(A) and hence, we are inclined to uphold the findings of Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the appeals filed by the revenue for AYs 2007-08 to 2013-14.

Shanti Prime Publication Pvt. Ltd.

Section 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961—hawala Transaction—Protective Addition—In the instant case, revenue is in appeal against the order of CIT wherein CIT has deleted the addition of undisclosed income amounting to 47,15,000/- as estimated on hawala business of transporting cash from one place to another.

The revenue also alleged that that the CIT has erred in ignoring the principal of extrapolation of income as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Eusafali 90ITR 271.

Held that—The AO has made protective addition in the hands of the assessee towards estimated commission income derived from hawala transactions on the ground that certain incriminating materials were found in the premises of the assessee and further, one of the employees has stated that the company is involved in hawala transactions.

It is also an admitted fact that substantive addition made in the hands of Shri Vishal Kalantri has attained finality in view of the order of ITAT, where the addition made by the AO has been examined in the light of incriminating material found during the course of search. Once, the substantive addition has been considered by the appellate authorities in the hands of Shri Vishal Kalantri, the protective addition made towards commission income in the hands of the assessee could not be sustained. The Ld.CIT(A), after considering relevant submissions, has rightly deleted addition made in the hands of the assessee for all assessment years under consideration. We do not find any error in the findings of Ld.CIT(A) and hence, we are inclined to uphold the findings of Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the appeals filed by the revenue for AYs 2007-08 to 2013-14.[DY. CIT, CENT. CIR. 2 (4) , MUMBAI VERSUS M/S INDERPURI EXPRESS COURIERS PVT LTD] [2018] [7] [ITCD Online] [46] [ ITAT MUMBAI]

n the instant case, revenue is in appeal against the order of CIT wherein CIT has deleted the addition of undisclosed income amounting to 47,15,000/- as estimated on hawala business of transporting cash from one place to another. The revenue also alleged that that the CIT has erred in ignoring the principal of extrapolation of income as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Eusafali 90ITR 271. Held that—The AO has made protective addition in the hands of the assessee towards estimated commission income derived from hawala transactions on the ground that certain incriminating materials were found in the premises of the assessee and further, one of the employees has stated that the company is involved in hawala transactions. It is also an admitted fact that substantive addition made in the hands of Shri Vishal Kalantri has attained finality in view of the order of ITAT, where the addition made by the AO has been examined in the light of incriminating material found during the course of search. Once, the substantive addition has been considered by the appellate authorities in the hands of Shri Vishal Kalantri, the protective addition made towards commission income in the hands of the assessee could not be sustained. The Ld.CIT(A), after considering relevant submissions, has rightly deleted addition made in the hands of the assessee for all assessment years under consideration. We do not find any error in the findings of Ld.CIT(A) and hence, we are inclined to uphold the findings of Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the appeals filed by the revenue for AYs 2007-08 to 2013-14.

Shanti Prime Publication Pvt. Ltd.

The revenue also alleged that that the CIT has erred in ignoring the principal of extrapolation of income as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Eusafali 90ITR 271.