AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (1) TMI 1717
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r section 132(1) of the Act, was conducted in the case of M/s. Mahasagar Securities Pvt. Ltd. (now known as M/s. Alag Securities Pvt. Ltd.), M/s. Mihir Agencies Pvt. Ltd., M/.s Alliance Intermediaries & Network Pvt. Ltd. and its other group companies along with the residential premises of Shri Mukesh Maneklal Choksi, Shri Jayesh Krishnaraj Sampat and Shri Sitaram Mahabeleshwar Bhat, the Directors and auditor of the Mahasagar Group of companies on 25th November 2009. The assessee's case was also covered under section 153C of the Act. It is stated in the assessment orders that it was found diring the course of search and seizure action that the assessee group companies were purely in the business of laundering black money into white by providing bogus share trading entires and Shri Mukesh Choksi is the mastermind behind the formation of all these companies. It is further stated that during the course of search proceedings, more than 300 bank accounts were procured and the total of the credits between financial year 2002-03 to 2009-10 comes Rs. 2,600 crore approximately which includes both cash, credits and clearing / transfer entities, RTGS, etc. The Assessing Officer has brought on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rther, appellant has also cited the appellate order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-37, Mumbai in respect of the search assessments completed u/s. 153C of the Act for the A.Yrs.2002-03 to 2007-08 consequent to the search & seizure action carried out on 28.06.2006. The factual matrix, the issues examined and the ratio of the decisions applied by the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal are carefully considered. In the orders passed by the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench in similar cases as well as in appellant's own group of cases, there were no materials found and seized during the search & seizure proceedings which clearly indicated the nature of transactions and the quantum of commission / profits earned by the appellants. Therefore, in cases where there were no specific materials that were unearthed during the search & seizure proceedings, Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai Bench has determined the commission / profits @ 0.15%. The Ld. CIT(A)-37, Mumbai has followed the said ratio of the decisions, having regard to the fact that no specific materials were relied upon by the A.O in respect of the earlier search assessments completed u/s.153C of the Act. In the light of these facts, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....have held that 0.15% net profit will be reasonable. The search in this case was on the very same day when the search in these other group concerns were carried out, wherein matter travelled up to the Tribunal and Tribunal have unanimously taken a view that 0.15% net profit on the bank deposit will be reasonable. Learned DR could not bring on record any distinguished facts. 9. The precise observation of Tribunal in the case of Goldstar Finvest Private Limited dated 01/06/2016 in ITA No.6114-6120/M/2012 was as under:- 4. In all these cases of the Group concerns of Sri Mukesh Chowksi including assessee, the assessments have been made in the wake of search and seizure action under section 132( 1) dated 25.11.2009 carried out in the cases of M/s Mahavir Securities Private Limited; M/s Mihir Agencies P. Ltd; M/s Alliance Intermediaries and Network P Ltd and other Group companies including assessee which was managed by Shri Mukesh Choksi Group and accommodation entries. The that the commission/net that, in the various Tribunal orders, which have been referred to above as well as in the case of the assessee itself, the net profit rate of 0.15% have been accepted. Not only that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rdingly, ground no.8 is treated as partly allowed. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed" In assessee's own case also, this issue has been decided in the following manner:- "4. On the other hand, the ld. DR relied upon the order of AO. Nothing has been brought on record by him to distinguish the orders relied upon by the ld. Counsel. 5. We have gone through the orders of lower authorities and tile 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 Tribunal in assessee's own. case [or the assessment year 2002-03. The relevant observations from the Tribunal's order were reproduced below: "12. Having, carefully examined the various orders in the case of different assessees: it has become amply clear that in these types of activities, brokers ore only concerned with their commission on the value of transactions. Now the question comes what would be the reasonable percentage to the commission on the total turnover? The assessee has also made out a case that the customers do not come direc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iture claimed should be allowed to the extent of 59% from such income. Accordingly, these two issues are decided in favour of the assessee. As regards the other grounds taken, the same have not been argued before us on the ground that they will become purely academic. . Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is treated as stated in the operating part of the order that similar issues are involved in all the appeals, therefore, this finding will apply mutatis mutandis in all the impugned years. Thus, all the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed. 4. In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed. 10. Respectfully following the consistent view taken by the Tribunal, we direct the AO to apply 0.15% net profit rate on the bank deposits to arrive at the net profit of the assessee. In the appeals filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A) u/s.271(1)(c), the learned AR placed on record number of order of Tribunal in group concerns, wherein similar penalty was deleted by the Tribunal. 11. Mihir Agencies Pvt Ltd (Appeal No. 695/Mum/2015, A.Y. 2004-05) Mukesh M Choksi (Appeal no. 996/Mum/2015; A.Y. 2005-06, wherein the Honourable Tribuna....