2016 (9) TMI 1550 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal reduces income assessment for appellant, cites commission income precedents.

M/s. Alpha Chemie Trade Agencies Private Limited Versus The DCIT, Cen. Cir. 46, Mumbai

The Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal for the assessment year 2010-11, directing the Assessing Officer to recompute the income at 0.15% instead of ... Commission from the business of accommodation entries - HELD THAT:- As perused the respective orders of the authorities below and find that similar issue had come up before the Tribunal in the cases of Goldstar Finvest Pvt. Ltd. [2015 (11) TMI 1693 - ITAT MUMBAI],Alliance Intermediateries and Network Pvt. Ltd. [2016 (2) TMI 1113 - ITAT MUMBAI] and Mr. Mukesh Choksi [2016 (5) TMI 1408 - ITAT, MUMBAI] which have been relied upon by the assessee before us. On perusal of the aforesaid decisions we find that the Tribunal had directed that the income by way of commission from the business of accommodation entries being carried out by Mukesh Choksi group was liable to be assessed at 0.15% instead of 2% applied by the Assessing Officer. Since it was a common point between the parties that the appellant company before us is also a part of the entities controlled by Mr. Mukesh Choksi, in our view, the aforesaid decisions are relevant to assess the income of the assessee. In this view of the matter, we, therefore, set-aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to recompute the commission income from the business of providing accommodation entry in conformity with the aforesaid precedents. We, therefore, set-aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer to redetermine the total income as per aforesaid directions. Needless to mention, the Assessing Officer shall allow the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard before recomputing the income as per law. Issues:- Assessment years 2004-05 to 2010-11- Validity of order passed by CIT(A)- Sufficiency of hearing provided by Assessing Officer- Evidence of valid satisfaction before issuing notice u/s 153C- Confirming additions made under the Act- Applying 2% income on entire bank deposits- Assessment made u/s. 153A without considering search-related income- Ignoring the absence of new assets generated from income- Allowing business expenses against estimated income- Levying interest u/s. 234B and 234CDetailed Analysis:1. The appeals were filed by the same assessee for assessment years 2004-05 to 2010-11, with common issues consolidated for convenience. The appeal for the assessment year 2010-11 challenged the order passed by CIT(A) dated 31/08/2012 based on the Assessing Officer's order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 08/12/2011.2. The appellant raised multiple grounds of appeal, including errors in confirming the Assessing Officer's order, lack of sufficient hearing, absence of valid satisfaction evidence before issuing notice u/s 153C, confirming additions made under the Act, applying 2% income on bank deposits, and errors in assessing income and levying interest.3. During the hearing, the appellant cited decisions related to sister concerns with similar issues, arguing for a similar treatment based on those precedents. The background involved a search and seizure action revealing accommodation entries provided by entities controlled by Mr. Mukesh Choksi, leading to the assessment of the appellant's income at &8377; 59,26,220/- for the year 2010-11.4. The Assessing Officer estimated the commission income at 2% based on total receipts in the bank account, a decision upheld by the CIT(A). The appellant argued for a lower assessment based on precedents from other group concerns covered by search actions.5. The Tribunal considered previous decisions related to commission income assessments in similar cases and directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the income at 0.15% in line with those precedents. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remanded for reassessment, ensuring a reasonable opportunity for the appellant to be heard.6. The decision for the assessment year 2010-11 was allowed in favor of the appellant, with the same decision applied to other assessment years due to similar circumstances. All appeals of the assessee were allowed based on the Tribunal's directions for reassessment and consideration of precedents.7. The order was pronounced in open court on 09/09/2016.