TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 1470
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appreciate the controversy. ITA NO. 243/MUM/2013 (Assessment Year - 2006-07) : 2. The captioned appeal by the assessee 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:- "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the order of Assessing Officer. 2. The learned. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and in facts in not appreciating the fact that the order is passed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Assessing Officer of application of the rate of 2% income on entire bank deposits managed by agents as against 0.03% offered by the appellant. 10. The learned. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and in facts by confirming the assessment made u/s. 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. 11. 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 car....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h, an assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act dated 8/12/2011 was made for assessment year 2006-07, wherein the total income was assessed at Rs. 5,25,700/- as against the returned income of Rs.NIL. Such assessment of income has been further affirmed by 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 the aforesaid, the Assessing Officer concluded that the group was earning commission ranging from 1.5% to 3.5% and accordingly he estimated the net commission income @2%. Accordingly, based o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s already been decided in the aforesaid decisions, and the same ratio is applicable in the captioned appeals also. 9. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. We find that similar issue had come up before the Tribunal in the cases of M/s. Goldstar Finvest Pvt. Ltd.(supra), M/s. Mihir Agencies Pvt. Ltd.(supra), M/s. Alliance Intermediateries and Network Pvt. Ltd.(supra) and Mr. Mukesh Choksi(supra), which have been relied upon by the assessee before us. The Tribunal 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 o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Kiran & 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 ....