TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 1290
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are common and identical except variation of amounts; therefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the facts narrated in IT(SS)A No.312/AHD/2017, for assessment 2008-09, in the case of M/s Dharam Impex, have been taken into consideration for deciding the above appeals en masse. 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in "lead" case (in IT(SS)A No.312/AHD/2017, for assessment year 2008-09, are reproduced below: "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the proceeding u/s 153C without appreciating the fact that no incriminating material was found during the course of search. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming order passed by Ld. AO u/s 144. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the rejection of books of account without pointing out any defect in books of accounts. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that assessmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e case of NTPC Vs CIT(1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) it can be raised at this stage even for the first time. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with ground raised before the ITAT for the first time relating to legal issue has held that Tribunal should not be prevented from considering questions of law arising in assessment proceedings although not raised earlier. It was also held that under section 254 of the Act the Tribunal has jurisdiction to examine a question of law which though not arose before lower authorities but arose before it from facts as found by lower authorities and having a bearing on tax liability of assessee. Therefore, we do not agree with contention of ld DR for the Revenue to the effect that assessee cannot raise this legal issue first time before the Tribunal. Since the additional ground raised by the assessee challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings is a legal issue which goes to the root of the matter and no further inquiry is needed for deciding the said legal issue as all facts are already on record, hence we admit the said additional ground of appeal of the assessee for adjudication. 8. The facts necessary for disposal of these appeals are stat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in response to the notice u/s 153C of the Act. Thereafter, notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 15.06.2015 and duly served upon the assessee. 10. The assessing officer noted that search was conducted on Rajendra Jain, Sanjay Choudhary & Dharmichand Jain group on 03-10-2013. Various evidences were collected during the search which explained inter alia, the modus operandi of the "business of providing accommodation entries in the nature of bogus sales & unsecured loans". During the search proceedings, it was established by evidences & statements of Shri Rajendra Jain, Shri Sanjay Choudhary & Shri Dharmichand Jain that there group concerns are : i) Engaged in merely paper transaction ; ii) Engaged in import of rough & cut polished diamonds for other clients (who do not want to show in there books), whose physical delivery is taken by actual importers, immediately after the clearance of consignment by CHA. iii) These concerns of Rajendra Jain, Sanjay Choudhary & Dharmichand Jain are left with stock on paper & zero stock in actual. These are basis of issuing bills & giving accommodation entries on commission basis, to various parties, who either purchases from cash, or want to infla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s business activities are duly acknowledged by the other Government authorities like customs department, sale tax department. However, assessing officer rejected this contention of the assessee, stating that it is not reliable. Regarding Customs Department, as explained by assessee himself, diamonds were handed over to real beneficiaries after the clearance from customs officials. Other Government authorities has not done any physical verification as the I.T. department has done. Issuance of sales tax/ VAT registration, payment of trade tax (in certain cases) are done by State- Authorities. There is no evidence brought before the department whether any spot verification or any physical verification is carried out by such authorities, on other hand proceedings u/s 132, collection of evidences and information's during the course of such proceedings as well as corroborative verification with parties, transactions undertaken by this assessee prove that no real business was being carried out by this assessee. Such finding of the department is past the event of any verification or issuance of VAT/ sales tax numbers, registration etc, by State Government or any other Authorities. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee. Proof of threat or coercion is necessary for valid retraction. The allegation that the assessee was tortured and harassed by the search team and was forced to make an admission is not enough [Manharlal Kasturchand Chokshi v. Asstt. CIT [1997] 61 ITD 55 (Ahd.)]. The Mumbai Tribunal, in the case of Param Anand Builders (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [1996] 59 ITD 29, has held that allegations of torture and harassment were unacceptable when independent witnesses were present at the time of search. Mere filing of a letter retracting the statement was not held to be rebuttal of the presumption that what is admitted is true. The Tribunal's observations were also based on the fact that the 'Panchas' had not brought any harassment to the notice of the higher authorities. In the present case assessee failed to prove by any legally acceptable evidence that statement of the partners given during search was involuntary or was tender under coercion or duress or was under misconception of facts. 14. Based on the above facts, assessing officer held that assessee is not doing actual business and earned only commission income on sales, import and loan entry. Hence, the books of account mainta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts/evidence unearthed during search. As discussed subsequently in detail in this order; Shri Dharmichand Jain through the businesses in the style of firms and companies where he is partner/director as a group (i) businesses were found with no physical stock of diamond at all, (ii) correspondence or orders, were found not placed by the assessee and his group to the foreign concern from which imports were shown in the books. All this prove that his admission was given when corroborative evidence was unearthed during the course of search. The above observations/evidences are being discussed in detail later in the order. In the light of above, where such evidences pertaining to the appellant was recovered during the course of search at the premises of Shri Dharmichand Jain and other group cases and there was clear admission (even confirmed after 3 months) that the nature of business of Shri Dharmichand Jain, through, various concerns including companies and firms was not as shown in the books but was being done to provide accommodation entries and accommodation to actual importers of diamonds. The rates of commission etc. were also disclosed. All these clinching and corroborative evi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted to Shri Dharmichand Jain (partner of the appellant firm); and only after two days of search starting and on the 2nd day of statement being recorded did he admit (Q. No. 30) that they were only doing paper transactions in various companies and firms where he was partner/director. b) Shri Dharmichand Jain himself, as discussed above; has admitted the entire modus operandi of how he runs the businesses in various concerns controlled by him to show bogus transactions of imports of rough diamonds and sales and actually through these entities helps actual importers to remain benami, provide bogus bills and bogus credits etc, without actually not at all trading in the diamonds as shown in regular account books and income tax returns. c) Shri Dharmichand Jain has admitted it not only during search on 5th Oct. 2013 but has reiterated it again in the statement recorded on 13.01.2014 i.e. after 3 months of the first statement. d) The delivery of diamonds was being taken even by the real beneficiaries/real importers. The fact that the statement cannot be forced is evidenced by the appellant giving the name of actual importers (hidden from record), who according to the appellant using....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e already too low, looking to the risk of the appellant where credit purchases (imports) are in its name and the banks would first catch him in case of default. The appellant who is engaged in helping others suppress taxable income etc. does not merit any further relief, looking to the entirety of facts and circumstances discussed above. Once, the gross profits are estimated on the basis of commission rates, the net profit has to be determined. The expenses shown in the books are obviously bogus. For instance, the appellant has been claiming expenses and incomes like exchange rates difference and expenses/commission on sales etc. When the actual business is importing for others and in books credits in the name of exporters stand for months together, naturally the exchange rate difference is not payable by the appellant. In fact, the cash payments from the actual beneficiary of imports are received much earlier. The cash flow generated would definitely be used to guarantee/pay the exporter immediately. In light of the total fictitious natural of transaction shown in books, where actual expenses of paper business can only be very low; allowance of 25% of gross income estimated as e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3. For A.Y. 2008-09, in case of Maniprabha Impex Pvt. Ltd. and Dharam Impex, assessee raised additional ground to the effect that issue of notice u/s 153C for this year is not valid. For A.Y. 2014-15, in case of all the assessees viz, Maniprabha Impex Pvt. Ltd., Dharam Impex and Kangan Jewels Pvt. Ltd., assessee took additional ground to the effect that assessment should have been made u/s 153C. All the ground including the additional grounds are discussed as under: * Additional Ground regarding validity of assessment made u/s. 153C for A.Y. 2008-09: 4. For A.Y. 2008-09 in the case of Maniprabha Impex Pvt. Ltd. [IT(SS)A No. 306/AHD/2017] and Dharam Impex [IT(SS)A No. 312/AHD/2017] the following additional ground was raised: "On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the Assessing Officer has erred in issuing notice u/s 153C for the year under consideration as notice u/s 153C can be issued for six years immediately preceding the assessment year in which the search was initiated i.e. 13.01.2015 and assessment for the year under consideration therefore becomes time barred for issue of notice u/s 153C." FACTS: 5. In this case, notice u/s 153C ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty of assessment u/s 153C for A.Y. 2008-09 to 2013-14: 10. For all the assessment years, all the three assessees [IT(SS)A No. 288-293, 306-317/AHD/2017 & ITA No. 1579-1580/AHD/2017] challenged validity of assessment u/s. 153C vide ground no. 1 as under: "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the proceeding u/s. 153C without appreciating the fact that no incriminating material was found during the course of search." FACTS: 11. The assessing officer has supplied the satisfaction note only in case of Maniprabha Impex Pvt. Ltd. and Dharam Impex. The satisfaction note was not supplied in case of Kangan Jewels Pvt. Ltd. For all the years the satisfaction note was recorded common on 13.01.2015 wherein the assessing officer failed to mention even assessment year. ARGUMENTS: 12. The assessing officer issued notice u/s 153C wherein it was mentioned that search was conducted in the case of assessee. In fact, search was not conducted in case of assessee and search was conducted in case of Dharmichand Jain. Further, in notice u/s. 153C, the reference of statement recorded u/s 132(4) of Shri Dharmichand Jain and collection of materia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent u/s 153C. The statement recorded u/s 132(4) can only be basis for block assessment only if such statement relates to any incriminating evidence of undisclosed income unearthed during search and seizure. Merely because a satisfaction note was recorded, same could not lead to reach a conclusion that notice under section 153C was justified. 16. Prior to 01.06.2015, the proceedings u/s 153C can be taken only when the books of accounts seized in the course of search of third person belongs to assessee. However, with effect from 01.06.2015, the amendment was made and even when the books of accounts seized do not belong to the assessee, the proceedings u/s 153C can be taken if such books of accounts relates or pertains to assessee. It has been held by the courts that the amendment made u/s 153C w.e.f 01.06.2015, cannot be applied retrospectively. With effect from 01.10.2014, Section 153C was amended and Assessing Officer should also be satisfied that the document seized have bearing on the total income of the assessee. In assessee's case the satisfaction note was recorded on 13.01.2015 and therefore this amendment is applicable. Accordingly, in the satisfaction note recorded u/s. 15....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....poses of section 153C. He relied on the judgment of Delhi High Court in case of PCIT vs. Nau Nidh Overseas (P.) Ltd. - [2017] 88 taxmann.com 665 (Delhi). However, the decision is distinguishable as in that case cash was seized in the course of search and the director admitted that the cash belonged to assessee company and therefore it was held that it was sufficient material to initiate proceedings u/s. 153C. However, in case of assessee no such asset or incriminating material was found belonging to the assessee representing any income. Against, the assessee has already relied on judgment of Courts in case of CIT vs. Shri Ramdas Motor Transport (supra), CIT vs. Naresh Kumar Agarwal (supra) and PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) (P.) Ltd. (supra). The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the non-finding of physical stock and correspondence of orders constituted materials. However, as per section 153C, there should be finding of any asset or incriminating materials belonging to the assessee in course of search. The statement made u/s 132(4) cannot be sole ground for initiation of proceeding u/s 153C. 19. Further even otherwise, in absence of incriminating materials the assessment is not vali....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Details of customs duty paid on imports * Export documents verified by Customs department * Documents showing movement of goods from India to overseas * Insurance documents for goods in transit * Kimberley process certificate issued after physical inspection of good * Registration certificate issued by Maharashtra and Gujarat Sale Tax Department * VAT Audit report along with VAT Challans * Import-Export Certificate issued by Director General of Foreign Trade * Invoices for purchase made from a government sponsored enterprise * Sample Bank Statement showing non-existence of any substantial cash withdrawal 22. In the following cases, the purchases were held to be genuine even when the statement was given by the entry provider that he has given the accommodation entries. The reliance is placed on the following decision of tribunals : * DCIT vs. Shri Sourabh Navalkishore Garg [ ITA No. 4130/Mum/2017 ] * Shantivijay Jewels Ltd. [ ITA No. 1045/Mum/2016 ] * Prabhat Gupta vs. ITO [ ITA No. 277/M/2017 & 797/M/2017 ] * Manoj Begani vs. ACIT [ ITA No. 932, 933, 935, 936/Kol/2017 ] * M/s. M.B. Jewellers & Sons vs. DCIT [ ITA No. 1/Kol/2017 ] Out of the above cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....times than Bhanwarlal Jain and this fact is considerable as assessee's volume is much on imports compared to other items i.e. other items viz. loan. In case of Bhanwarlal Jain, the commission was estimated @ 1% for loan and in case of assessee it was taken @ 0.5% but this is having negligible effect as the loan outstanding in the case of the assessee is very less. Accordingly, Shri Bhanwarlal Jain declared commission on import after considering the expenses on import including Forex loss. Alternatively, it is submitted that the commission income @ 0.02% on import should be taken if expenses are allowed @ 25% as it was allowed in the case of Bhanwarlal Jain. 26. In the case of Bhanwarlal Jain, all the additions on account of commission of controlled concerns were added in his case only. However, in case of Dharmichand Jain, the additions of controlled concerns were made on protective basis which were deleted by CIT(A) and therefore there are separate appeals in case of alleged controlled concerns of Dharmichand Jain. 27. From the above discussion it is clear that the assessing officer has wrongly rejected books of accounts of the assesse on the basis of statement recorded u/s. 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see may be dismissed. 19. On merits, Ld. CIT-DR argued that during the assessment proceedings loose papers, data contains in pen drive etc. were incriminating material and the entry recorded in these incriminating material has not been explained by the assessee. The Ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue also pointed out that assessee also did not co-operate during the assessment proceedings, therefore assessment was framed u/s 144 of the Act. The Ld. CIT-DR further pointed out that during the assessment stage, the Assessing Officer has given enough relief to the assessee and also given the deduction in respect of expenses incurred by the assessee, therefore the assessee does not deserve further relief and hence order passed by the Assessing Officer should be confirmed. 20. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. We note that in additional grounds, the assessee has challenged the validity of assessment under section 153C on account of defective sati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../s Maniprabha Impex, Kangan Jewels Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Dharam Impex. Looking at the nature of the transactions, the seized materials carry a clear implication over the income of the assessee. M/s Maniprabha Impex, Kangan Jewels Pvt. Ltd and M/sDharam Impex is shown to be run by Shri Dharmichand Jain. His residence has been covered u/s 132A of the Act. Shri Dharmichand Jain in his statements recorded on oath during the search proceedings, has categorically admitted that they were operating the business of providing accommodation entries through various companies. He is hold position as Director/partner in these concerns, M/s Dharam Impex is one of the firm in which Dharichand Jain has done accommodation entries. This requires detailed investigation. Due to these facts involved in the case, the case requires to be covered with the provisions of section 153C of the Act. 13.01.2015 Sd/-Shashi Bhushan Prasad Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax Central Circle-4, Surat 21. We have gone through the above satisfaction note and noted that search was conducted on 03.10.2013 whereas satisfaction note was recorded on 13.01.2015. Therefore, the satisfaction note was recorded by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed person. Thus, by virtue of second proviso to Section 153A of the Act as it applies to proceedings under Section 153C of the Act, the assessment/reassessment pending on the date on which the assets/documents are received by the AO would abate. In respect of such assessments which have abated, the AO would have the jurisdiction to proceed and make an assessment. However, in respect of concluded assessments, the AO would assume jurisdiction to reassess provided that the assets/documents received by the AO represent or indicate any undisclosed income or possibility of any income that may have remained undisclosed in the relevant assessment years. This Court in CIT v. Kabul Chawla [2015] 61 taxmann.com 412 (Delhi) has held that completed assessments could only be interfered with by the AO on the basis of any incriminating material unearthed during the course of the search or requisition of the documents. In absence of any incriminating material, the AO does not have any jurisdiction to interfere in concluded assessments. This Court had summarized the legal position in respect of Section 153A of the Act as under:- '37. On a conspectus of Section 153A(1) of the Act, read with the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment.' 22. The aforesaid principles would be equally applicable to proceedings initiated under Section 153C of the Act as Section 153C(1) of the Act expressly provides that once the AO has received "money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable articles or thing or books of account or documents seized" from the AO of the searched person, he would proceed to assess or reassess the income of the person to whom such assets/books belong in accordance with Section 153A of the Act. 23. In the present case, the Assessee had claimed that the assessments for the concerned assessment years were not pending on the date of recording of satisfaction by the AO and, therefore, would not abate by virtue of the second proviso to Section 153A of the Act. Further, the period of six years would also have to be reckoned with respect to the date of recording of satisfaction note - that is, 8th September, 2010 - and not the date of search. 24. As discussed hereinbefore, in terms of proviso to Section 153C of the Act, a re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o a person other than a searched person come into possession of the AO of that person only after the AO of the searched person is satisfied that the assets/documents do not belong to the searched person. Thus, the date on which the AO of the person other than the one searched assumes the possession of the seized assets would be the relevant date for applying the provisions of Section 153A of the Act. We, therefore, accept the contention that in any view of the matter, assessment for AY 2003-04 and AY 2004-05 were outside the scope of Section 153C of the Act and the AO had no jurisdiction to make an assessment of the Assessee's income for that year." 23. On the identical facts as noted above, again the Hon`ble High Court of Delhi, in the case of Sarwar Agency (P) Limited, 85 taxmann.com 269 (Del), held as follows: "2. The question sought to be urged by the Revenue is whether the ITAT was justified in holding that the notice issued to the Assessee under Section 153 C of the Act for the AY in question, i.e. 2006-07, is without jurisdiction since the said AY is beyond the purview of issuance of notice in terms of the said provision. 3. The facts, in brief, are that a search un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on. 7. The case of the Assessee, on the other hand, is that since in the case of the 'other person' the AO issues notice only subsequent to the notices issued under Section 153 A to the searched person, the starting point for computation of the block period would be the date on which, based on the seized documents, notice is issued to the 'other person' under Section 153C of the Act. Thus in the present case, the six year period prior to AY 2012-13 i.e. AY 2007-08 to AY 2012-13. Thus no notice could be issued under Section 153C of the Act to reopen the Assessee's assessment for AY 2006- 07. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in CIT v. RRJ Securities Ltd. [2016] 380 ITR 612/[2015] 62 taxmann.com 391 (Delhi) where this very question was examined and answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. 8. In RRJ Securities (supra), the Court after noticing the decision in SSP Aviation Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2012] 346 ITR 177/207 Taxman 260/20 taxmann.com 214 (Delhi), held as follows: "21. As discussed hereinbefore, once the AO of the searched person is satisfied that the seized assets/documents belong to another person and the said assets/docum....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....over of assets/documents to the AO of the Assessee." 9. The said decision in RRJ Securities (supra) has been followed by this Court subsequently in ARN Infrastructure India Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2017] 394 ITR 569/81 taxmann.com 260 (Delhi). 10. Mr. Salil Aggarwal, learned counsel for the Assessee, has drawn the attention of the Court to the recent amendment made in Section 153 C of the Act by the Finance Act, 2017 with effect from 1st April 2017. This amendment in effect states that the block period for the searched person as well as the 'other person' would be the same six AYs immediately preceding the year of search. This amendment is prospective. 11. Mr. Ashok Manchanda, learned Senior Standing counsel for the Appellant, sought to pursue this Court to reconsider its view in RRJ Securities (supra). The Court declines to do so for more than one reason. First, for reasons best known to it, the Revenue has not challenged the decision of this Court in RRJ Securities (supra) in the Supreme Court. The said decision has been consistently followed by the authorities under this Court as well as by this court. Thirdly, the recent amendment to Section 153 C(1) of the Act states ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....defective notice therefore all the proceedings initiated against these assessees` may be quashed. We reproduce such notice as follows: 28.With help of the above notice u/s 153C r.w.s.153A of the Act, the ld Counsel states that search u/s 132(1) was not conducted in assessee's case as on 03.10.2013, whereas the above notice says that search was conducted in assessee`s case, thus the Department is not aware about the basic facts of the assessee`s case, hence, the contents of the notice u/s 153C r.w.s.153A of the Act, is not in accordance with law, therefore all proceedings initiated against these assessees` may be quashed. 29. On the other hand, ld CIT-DR argued that this is typographical error in issuing notice 153C r.w.s.153A of the Act. The assessee has participated in assessment proceedings under section 153C of the Act during the assessment stage. The assessee has also participated in appellate proceedings and never objected the notice, that is, the assessee accepted the notice. 30. We have considered arguments of both sides and noted that there is typographical error in issuing notice 153C r.w.s.153A of the Act. We note that assessee has neither objected the notice during as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d all the documents placed on record by the assessee. We have also deliberated on the various case laws relied by the ld. AR for the assessee. We find that in Ground No. 1, the assessee has challenged the validity of search action carried out under section 132 and upholding the action of A.O. in making assessment under section 144 rws 153A, however, during the submissions no specific submissions was made, therefore, the corresponding ground No.1 of appeal is treated as not pressed and dismissed as such. 13.Now adverting to the Ground No. 2 to 5 which relates to the additions of commission income that such additions are not based on incriminating evidence. A search action was carried out by the revenue at the assessee group on 03.10.2013, during the search action the statement of Rajinder Jain, Dharmi Chand Jain and Sanjay Chowdhary was recorded. Consequent on the search action and evidences gathered during search and post search action, notice under section 153A was served on the assessee to file return of income. The assessee filed return in response to the said notice, but no additional income was offered. The assessing officer after serving statutory notices proceeded for asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The AO worked out the total disallowance of Rs.24,54,136/- as a commission income and after granting deduction of expenses @ 25% on such addition made addition of Rs.18,40,602/- in the following way; Sales Amount Rate of commission, Commission income Total turnover 2,43,23,94,646/- Total Import 86,88,19,534/- Total turn over (Excluding import & group turnover) 1,47,37,83,599/- @0.02% 2,94,757/- Import made 89,88,19,534/- @0.20% 17,37,639/- Loan outstanding at year end 8,43,48,087/- @0.50% 4,21,740/- Total commission income earned 24,54,136/- Deduction of expenses of 25% is given for paper transactions & related cost as the such 6,13,534/- Income Assessed 18,40,602/- 14.Though, the AO also made various protective additions of income assessed in assessee's group concern, however, all those protective additions were deleted by the ld CIT(A). No further appeal is filed by revenue against such order in deleting the protective additions. 15.The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions of commission income on export as well as on unsecured loan. The ld CIT(A) while confirming the orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n in case of Bhanwar Lal Jain, who was also providing similar accommodation entry with similar modus operandi. The ld CIT(A) further held that once books are rejected, the profit is to be estimated on the basis of commission rates and net profit is to be determined. On the grievance of assessee of exchange rate difference, the ld CIT(A) held that when the actual business is importing for others and in the books credit in the name of exporters (other beneficiary), the exchange rate difference is not payable by the assessee and rejected the ground raised by the assessee. 16.Before us, the ld AR for the assessee basically made two fold submissions that no incriminating material/ evidence was recovered during the course of search and that the assessee retracted from his statement recorded by the search party and the assessee was doing real business and not engaged in providing accommodation entry. We find that during the search action more than sufficient incriminating evidence was found, which is also supported with the corroborative evidence found in the form of e-mails and other evidence in the form of books of account recovered from the pen drive, which itself is incriminating ev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ernative and without prejudice ground that the alleged commissions has already included by the assessee in his sales transaction. Considering the facts that the lower authority have categorically held that the assessee was not doing any genuine business transactions and was engaged in providing accommodation entry, books of the assessee was rejected and only very meager rate of commission income was added to the total income of the assessee, which we have already affirmed. If for the sake of assuming it is considered that the assessee was doing genuine business, thus, keeping in view of volume of transactions in his bank account, the income of assessee would be estimated many fold comparative to the commission income added by the AO. Thus, the alternative ground of appeal is also rejected. 18.Ground No. 7 relates to rejection of books of accounts and ground No. 8 relates to expenses including foreign exchanges expenses, we find that the grievances of the assessee raised in these grounds of appeal has already been discussed in ground No. 3 to 5, therefore, needs no further adjudication. In the result all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are rejected. 19.In the result....