TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 736
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of appeal:- "1. The Learned Appellate Commissioner has erred in law and in facts in passing the order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. The learned Appellate Commissioner has erred in law and in facts in passing the order without complying with the principles of natural justice. 3. The learned Appellate Commissioner has erred in law and in facts in levying penalty u/s 271(10(c) of the Act at Rs. 12,000/-. 4. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter amend and/or delete in all the foregoing grounds of appeal." 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessment in the case of the assessee company which is engaged in the business of providing accommodation entries was earlier framed under Sec. 143(3) r.w.s 153C, vide o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....idered, but however, finally offered the commission income to the tune of 0.15% of the total deposits in its bank accounts as its income. The A.O observing that as the assessee had failed to conclusively establish the source, nature, genuineness and creditworthiness in respect of the total deposits of Rs. 1734 lacs in its bank accounts on the basis of documentary evidence, therefore, treating the same as unexplained income of the assessee earned from undisclosed sources, added the same to the income of the assessee under Sec. 68 and assessed its income at Rs. 17,34,11,610/-, vide his order dated 31.12.2010. The A.O while culminating the assessment also issued a 'Show cause' notice (for short 'SCN') under Sec. 271(1)(c) on 31.12.2010, callin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, submitted that the assessee was engaged in the business of providing accommodation entries. It was submitted by the ld. A.R that a coordinate bench of the Tribunal, viz. ITAT, Mumbai Bench "B" while disposing off the quantum appeals of the assessee, viz. M/s Mihir Agencies Pvt. Ltd. for A.Ys 2004-05 to 2010-11, had concluded that the net profit rate/commission income from the total turnover of the assessee was to be taken @0.15% and the expenses were to be allowed to the extent of 50% (copy placed on record). The ld. A.R further submitted that the appeals of the assessee against the order of the CIT(A) upholding the penalty imposed by the A.O under Sec. 271(1)(c) had been allowed in the assesses own case for A.Y. 2004-05 by the Tribunal,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ved in the case of the assessee for the year under consideration, viz. A.Y 2003-04 and that of A.Y 2004-05 can safely be gathered from the very fact that the CIT(A) had vide his consolidate order, dated 14.11.2014 for both of the said two years, viz. A.Ys 2003-04 and 2004-05, dismissed both the appeals of the assessee against the respective orders passed under Sec. 271(1)(c) for the said years. We find that the coordinate bench of the Tribunal, viz. ITAT "E" in M/s Mihir Agencies Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT-CC 46, Mumbai; ITA/695 /Mum/2015, dated 27.07.2016, for A.Y 2004-05 had deleted the penalty imposed by the A.O under Sec. 271(1)(c), observing as under: "6. We have heard the rival submissions and produce the material before us. We f ind that c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... had f iled its return of income for the year 1997-98 on a not ice u/s.148 of the Act, l96l declaring a loss of Rs. 83,64,468/-.The assessee had, in the return attached a note stating that it was impossible for i t to substantiate i ts claim of loss by way of any evidence as the relevant records were seized and were with the pol ice authorities. The A.O after being unable to obtain copies of' the seized documents, based his assessment order on the limited documents provided and rejected the book results declared by the assessee. He estimated the income of the assessee at Rs. 61,00,000/-. He also initiated penalty proceedings separately. The FAA estimated the total income of the assessee at Rs. 1,02,980/. The Tribunal confirmed this orde....