AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 1384
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce and brevity. 2. We may refer to the appeal for assessment year 2007-08 in order to appreciate the controversy, as the facts and circumstances in all the years are similar. ITA No.19/Mum/2013 for assessment year 2007-08 is directed against an order passed by CIT(A)-38, Mumbai dated 30/11/2012, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 08/12/2011. 3. In this appeal, assessee has raised multiple Grounds of appeal, which read as under:- "Following grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other: "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....153C made by the Assessing Officer without appreciating the fact that only the income which is based ,on the evidences found as a result of search can be assessed in the present assessment. 9. The learned. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and in facts by confirming the assessment made by Assessing Officer by ignoring the facts that no new assets have been generated or emerged out of the income during the last 10 years even after the detailed search carried out by the Income Tax department. 10. The learned. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the act of Assessing Officer of the disallowance of business expenses against the income estimated. 11. The learned. Commission....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the CIT(A), against which the assessee is in appeal before us. 5.1 During the course of search proceedings, the Revenue had noted that for providing accommodation entries, the entities like the assessee, which were controlled by Mr. Mukesh Choksi were earning commission income. In view of such modus operandi noted and the statements of Mr. Mukesh Choksi, recorded at the time of search, the Assessing Officer notes that the group was earning commission ranging from 1.5% to 3.5% and accordingly he estimated the net commission income @2%. Accordingly, based on the total receipts reflected in the bank account, the Assessing Officer estimated the commission income @2% at Rs. 8,43,125/- This action of the Assessing Officer has since been uphel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he rival submissions. We have also 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.(supra), M/s. Mihir Agencies Pvt. Ltd.(supra), Alliance Intermediateries and Network Pvt. Ltd.(supra) and Mr. Mukesh Choksi(supra), 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. In this context, we reproduce hereinafter paras 5 & 6 of the order of the Tribunal in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ran & Co (supra) in similar type of transactions. The theory of Assessing Officer to treat the entire deposit as unexplained cash credits, cannot be accepted in the light of assessment orders in the case of beneficiaries and also in the light of the fact that assessee is only concerned with the commission earned on providing accommodation entries. We, therefore, of the view that since the assessee itself has declared the commission on turnover at 0.15% which is more than the percentage considered to be reasonable by the Tribunal in the case of Palresha & Co and Kiran & Co (supra), the same should be accepted. We, accordingly, accept the commission declared by the assessee and set aside the order of the CIT (A) in this regard." 6. It is f....