TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 1151
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....peal, assessee raised the following concise grounds and additional grounds which read as under:- "1. The Ld CIT (A) has erred in law and in facts in not appreciating that the AO has passed the order without complying with the principles of natural justice and the assessment order is thus illegal and bad in law. 2. The Ld CIT (A) has erred in law and in facts in not appreciating that the notice issued by the AO is bad in law and void ab initio. 3. The Ld CIT (A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the disallowance of expenses of Rs. 2,60,967/- made by the Assessing Officer. 4. The Ld CIT (A) has erred in law and in facts in not appreciating that the AO has erred in considering the subsequent return of income of income of the appellant which has been filed by Mr. Narendra Shah without authorization. 5. The Ld CIT (A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 42,94,218/- on account of alleged commission received by the appellant. 6. The Ld CIT (A) has erred in law and in facts in not appreciating that the commission income has actually been earned by Mr. Narendra Shah and ought to be taxed in his hands....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Counsel for the assessee submitted that the date of receipt of the documents from the AO of the searched person is 13.12.2006 which falls in the assessment year 2007-2008. Thus, as per the assessee the six years referred to in clause (b) of section 153A(1) of the Act starts with AY 2006-07. For this proposition he relied on various decisions of the ITAT viz., the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Jasjit Singh vs. ACIT vide ITA No.1436/Del/2012 (AY 2009-2010), dated 5.11.2014 and another decision of the ITAT, Delhi in the case of R.L. Allied Industries Vs. ITO vide ITA Nos. 567 & 568/Del/2011 & 4812 to 4816/Del/2012 (AYs 2000-01 to 2002-03), dated 28.11.2014 which are relevant for the proposition that the date of receipt of the documents constitutes date of search for the purpose of determining the six assessment years referred to in clause (b) of section 153A(1) of the Act. 4. On the other hand, Ld DR for the Revenue relied heavily on the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Divya Jeyram Meghani vs. DCIT (ITA No.1134/PN/2012. Replying to the said decision of the Tribunal (supra), Ld Counsel for the assessee demonstrated that in that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Tribunal viz the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Jasjit Singh vs. ACIT (supra) and another decision of the ITAT, Delhi in the case of R.L. Allied Industries Vs. (supra). For the sake of completeness of this order, the relevant conclusions of the said Tribunal‟s decision in the case of R.L. Allied Industries (supra) are extracted as under:- "Assessee‟s AO having received the seized material on 12th March, 2009, ie in previous year 2008-2009 relevant to asst. yr. 2009-10, assessment under section 153C could be made for preceding six years 2003-2004 to 2008-2009 and therefore, issue of notice u/s 153C for Assessment Years 2001-02 and 2002-03 was barred by limitation; said notice and the assessment made in pursuance thereof are quashed." 7. In the present case, undisputedly, the documents are received by the Assessing Officer of the „other person‟ on 13.12.2006 which falls in the AY 2007-08 and therefore, "immediately preceding assessment year" mentioned in clause (b) of section 153A(1) of the Act is AY 2006-07. Therefore, considering the settled legal position of the issue and without going into the other arguments ra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....jected by the AO as done in the earlier assessment years. AO uniformly adopted the flat rate of 5% of the entire accommodation entries business. Aggrieved with the same assessee filed an appeal before the first appellate authority. 14. Before the CIT (A), assessee filed various documents adopting the uniform rate of 5% and for not granting any expenditure for doing the said business of accommodation entries. After considering the submissions of the assessee, CIT (A) examined the claims of the assessee and finally, partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. While coming to such decision, CIT (A) held that estimating the commission adopting the rate of 3% would fair and reasonable. Relevant lines from para 6.4.19 read with 14.3.2 of CIT (A)‟s order are relevant in this regard. 15. Aggrieved with the above decision of the CIT (A), Revenue is in appeal against the relief granted to the assessee. Further, the assessee is in appeal regarding determining the commission @ 3% instead of 0.5% as offered by the assessee. 16. Before us, Ld Representatives of both the parties reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities. 17. We have heard both the parties and p....