IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT, BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. I.T.A. No .254/Rjt/2016 ( Assessment Year 2008-09) M/s Shivam Marketin g, ITO, Gundala Road, Vs . Ward-1(2), Gondal. Rajkot. PAN/GIR No. ABBFS8088E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Written Submission Respondent by Shri Anil Kumar, Sr.D.R. Da te o f Hearing 19/09/2019 /Date o f Pronouncement 20/09/2019 ORDER PER WASEEM AHMED ACCOUNTANT MEMBER captioned appeal has been filed at instance of Assessee against order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Ahmedabad [Ld. CIT(A) in short] of dated 24/01/2012, arising in matter of assessment order passed under s. 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") dated 23/11/2010 relevant to Assessment Years (A.Y.) 2008-09. assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in confirming addition of ITA No.254/RJT/2016 A.Y.s 2008-09 -2- Rs. 2,64,502/-, treating same as un-accounted commission income. addition needs deletion. 2. Without prejudice, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in confirming addition of Rs. 2,64,502/-, treating same as un-accounted commission income. Without allowing deduction of expenditure there from. addition needs suitable reduction. 3. Without prejudice, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in confirming entire addition of Rs. 2,64,502/- treated by Ld. A.O. and added at lOO%. addition needs suitable reduction.- 4. Without prejudice, assessment made is bad in law and deserves annulment. 5. Without prejudice, no adequate, sufficient and reasonable opportunity has been provided. assessment needs annulment. 6. appellant craves leave to add/alter/amend and/or substitute any or all ground of appeal before actual hearing takes place. solitary issue raised by assessee is that learned CIT (A) erred in confirming addition made by AO for 2,64,502 on account of unaccounted commission income. 2. Briefly stated facts are that assessee in present case is partnership firm and engaged in business of distributorship of Sanghi Cement. AO during assessment proceedings found that assessee has shown commission income in its books of accounts amounting to 14,47,430 only whereas as per TDS certificate commission income of assessee comes to 17,11,932 only. Thus difference of 2,64,502 was treated as unaccounted commission income by AO and added to total income of assessee. ITA No.254/RJT/2016 A.Y.s 2008-09 -3- Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal to learned CIT (A). 3. assessee before learned CIT (A) submitted that entire amount of commission cannot be treated as income on account of non- reconciliation of amount shown in books viz viz shown in TDS certificate. Accordingly assessee offered to tax profit element embedded in such commission amount. 4. However learned CIT (A) disregarded contention of assessee by observing that there was not any plausible reason furnished by assessee for difference in amount of commission. Accordingly, learned CIT (A) confirmed order of AO. Being aggrieved by order of learned CIT (A), assessee is in appeal before us. 5. learned AR before us filed written submission stating that ld. CIT-A should have condoned delay in filing appeal of assessee and matter should have been decided on merit. 6. On other hand learned DR vehemently supported order of authorities below. 7. We have heard learned DR and perused materials available on record. There was difference in amount of commission shown by assessee in its books of accounts viz viz amount shown in ITA No.254/RJT/2016 A.Y.s 2008-09 -4- TDS certificate. Therefore AO made addition on account of such difference of 2,64502.00. assessee before learned CIT (A) has requested to tax profit element embedded in such commission income. However, learned CIT (A) rejected plea of assessee. 7.1 Even before us, learned AR in written submission has not raised any arguments on merit. As such, learned AR before us pleaded to restore matter to file of learned CIT (A) for fresh consideration on ground that issue was not decided on merit. However on perusal of order of learned CIT (A), we note that learned CIT (A) has passed speaking order rejecting claim of assessee on merit. Thus we are not impressed with argument of learned AR for assessee submitted in written submission. 7.2 plea taken by assessee before learned CIT (A) is also note plausible i.e. to tax profit element embedded in amount of commission. It is because there is no detail available on record demonstrating that there was some direct expense incurred against such commission income. Therefore, there cannot be any question of working out any profit element out of such commission income. 7.3 We further note that assessee has already claimed all expenses in its profit and loss account and there is no further scope of allowing any expense against such unaccounted commission income. ITA No.254/RJT/2016 A.Y.s 2008-09 -5- Therefore we do not find any defect in order of authorities below. Hence ground of appeal of assessee is dismissed. 8. In result, appeal of assessee is dismissed. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 20/09/2019 -Sd- -Sd- (RAJPAL YADAV) (WASEEM AHMED) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (True Copy) Dated 20/09/2019 manish Shivam Marketing v. ITO, Ward-1(2), Rajkot