TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 1550
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce and brevity. 2. We may refer to the appeal for assessment year 2010-11 in order to appreciate the controversy, as the facts and circumstances in all the years are similar. ITA No.6558/Mum/2012 for assessment year 2010- 11 is directed against an order passed by CIT(A)-38, Mumbai dated 31/08/2012, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) 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 confirming the or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the facts that no new assets have. been generated or emerged out of the income during the last 10 years even after carrying out the detailed search by the department. 9. The learned. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and ld.-D.C.I.T. Central Circle-46 have erred in law and in facts in not allowing business expenses against the income estimated. 10. The learned. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and ld.D.C.I.T. Central Circle-46 have erred in law and in facts in levying interest u/s. 234B and 234C of the Act. 4. At the time of hearing, it was stated by the Ld. Representative for the assessee that the issues raised in the captioned appeals have already been decided by the Tribunal in the cases of the sister concerns of assessee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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. 59,26,220/-. This action of the Assessing Officer has since been upheld by the CIT(A). 6. Before us, the Ld. Representative for the assessee submitted that similar additions were made by the Assessing Officer in the cases of other group concerns also, which were covered by the search action carried out by the Department on 25/11/2009. It is pointed out that in the aforesaid decisions, the Tribunal has accepted the stand of the assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 case of Goldstar Finvest Pvt. Ltd.(supra), wherein earlier precedents have been relied upon and the issue decided accordingly:- 5. We have gone through the orders of lower authorities and the orders of the co-ordinate bench of Tribunal in assessee's own case and other orders relied upon by the assessee. It is noted by us that identical issue had came up before the Tribu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 further noticed by us that this stand has been constantly accepted by the Tribunal in various orders, details of which have been given by the ld. Counsel, as mentioned above. We have gone through the orders as enclosed in the paper book filed by the assessee and find that the ld. AR has correctly stated that this issue has been unanimously accepted by the Tribunal in various case....