TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 1637
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appeal for assessment year 2009-10 in order to appreciate the controversy, as the facts and circumstances in both the years are similar. ITA No.309/Mum/2013 for assessment year 2009-10 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:- "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 order of Assessing Officer. 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t 0.15% offered by the appellant. 9. The learned. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the act 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 ig....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t such entities were providing accommodation entries by way of share trading/ loans, etc. As the assessee herein also was covered in the search, an assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act dated 8/12/2011 was made for assessment year 2009-10, wherein the total income was assessed at Rs. 2,19,680/-, as against the returned loss of Rs. 589/-. 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 such modus operandi noted and the statements ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2(1) of the Act. 8. In reply, Ld. Representative for the assessee pointed out that even the group concern cases, relied upon by him, were covered by the search action and there is complete identity on facts. Therefore, it was contended that the said issue has 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 have also perused the respective orders of the authorities below and find that similar issue had come up before the Tribunal in the cases of Goldstar Finvest Pvt. Ltd.(supra), M/s. Mihir Agencies Pvt. Ltd.(supra), Alliance Intermediateries and Network Pvt. Ltd.(supra) and Mr. Mukesh Choksi(supra), which have bee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rcentage of commission is between 0.15% to 0.25%. In the case of Palresha & Co. and Kiran & Co (surpa), the Tribunal has considered reasonableness of percentage of commission to be earned on turnover was at 0.1%. The assessee himself has offered the percentage of commission at 0.15%, which is more than the percentage of commission considered to be reasonable by the Tribunal in the case of Palresha & Co and 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 accommodati....