TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 1371
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion (P) Ltd. for AY 2005-06 are reproduced as under: "1. That the CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 4,60,99,500/- being the cash deposits in the bank account of the appellant company without appreciating that admittedly the appellant company was being controlled by Mr. Tarun Goyal and he was carrying on the business of providing accommodation entries through various entities, including the appellant company and the cash was deposited in the bank account of the appellant for the purpose of layering the transactions and entries have been transferred to other group entities from where accommodation entries have been provided and therefore, cash deposited could not be added under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act in the case of the Appellant. 2. That the CIT(A) also failed to appreciate that considering totality of the circumstance cash deposited in the bank account of Rs. 4,60,99,500/- could not be added u/s 68 of the Act as the Assessing Officer has already considered commission income on the amount of accommodation entries given to outside parties from other group entities to which entities entries had been transferred from the account of the Appellant a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... income @ 2% on the amount representing the entries given to outside parties without correctly appreciating the facts of the case and following the directions of Hon'ble ITAT vide its order dated 18.10.2013. 2. That the CIT(A) erred in upholding the commission income @2% disregarding the directions of Hon'ble ITAT to apply the rate considering the precedence available in this regard, for which necessary evidence had been duly submitted before the CIT(A). 3. That the CIT(A) erred in taking a view that precedence available in the form of appellate/assessment orders in other cases could not be considered for the purpose of taking the rate of commission inspite of the fact that the Hon'ble Tribunal had directed to determine the rate of commission taking into consideration the precedence available in this regard. 4. That the CIT(A) also erred in upholding the order of Assessing Officer determining commission @ 2% on the basis of rough notings in seized papers without appreciating that the notings under reference could not be relied upon as neither same were specifically in regard to rate of commission nor details were corroborated with other material and in an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t registered/created more than 90 business entities; such as Private Ltd. Companies and Firms, for providing accommodation entries at his office premises at 13/34, W.E.A., Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The Directors of such companies were his employees, who worked in his office as peons, clerks, receptionist etc. All the documents including blank cheques were got signed from these employees. A number of bank accounts were opened in the names of these companies and his employees. For providing accommodation entries this Group used to accept cash from the beneficiaries. The cash was deposited in bank account of any of the business concerns of this Group. Later, the said sums were transferred from one concern to another within the Group before returning/providing the said sums to the beneficiaries through banking channels. Transferring the money from one concern to another was to camouflage the true nature of money and to avoid investigations by the Tax Authorities. The accommodation entries were provided in the garb of Share capital, etc. Mr. Tarun Goyal admitted the above-mentioned facts during the course of initial assessment proceedings, under section 153A, 153C and 148 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as explained. But the burden of proof lies on the assessee. 22. Admittedly certain assessment of Shri Tarun Goyal, the kingpin are at various stages and have not reached the Tribunal. Under these circumstances, it would not be possible to have in overall view of the matter and eliminate chain / multiple transaction, for arriving at the correct assessable amount. Thus, we have no other alternative but to set aside all these appeals to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. 23. The AO shall after examining the evidence submitted by the assessee, consider all the cases together and; a) restrict the addition u/s 68 to only the peak unexplained credit in each case after elimination circular transaction. b) To eliminate taxation of the same amount multiple times, due to the chain transactions which resulted due to layering indulged by the assessee. c) Considerer the material on record and the precedence available on the issue and determine the percentage of commission, which the assessees would have earned and bring the same to tax. 24. Before parting we make it clear that the burden of proof lay on the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of bank accounts had to be taxed in pursuance of the Tribunal order dated 18.10.2013. 8. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that the commission income had to be taxed @ 0.50% in the hands of respective assessees of this group instead of @ 2.00% taxed by the AO. To buttress this argument, the Ld. Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in of the case of this Group; namely, Bhawani Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 158/2020& CM APPL. 7946/2020) and Tribunal order in the cases of Ordinary Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 6719/Del/2016) wherein the rate of 0.50% of commission income. The Ld. Counsel drew our attention to para 9 of the Hon'ble High Court order in the case of M/s. Bhawani portfolio Pvt. Ltd. (supra), order dated 12th July, 2021. The finding of the Hon'ble High Court in para 9 is extracted as under:- "9. This court is of the view that none of the aforesaid findings are so perverse that they warrant an interference in appeal jurisdiction under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This Court is also of the view that the Tribunal, being the last fact-finding authority, was entitled to guess work and arrive at a ballpark rate of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it took accommodation entry of Rs. 48,59,333/-. Further, the appellant/assessee had not brought any corroboratory evidence to substantiate its claim and contradict the finding of the Ld. CIT(A). Further, the Ld. CIT-DR drew our attention to the finding of the Tribunal in the case of the appellant/assessee wherein the Tribunal had not held the same as accommodation entries. 12. We have heard both the parties and have perused the material available on the record. We also perused the above referred case laws. 13. The dispute before us is limited only with the determination of quantum of peak credits appearing in books of accounts/bank accounts of various assessees. Undisputedly, the appellants/assessees were involved in providing accommodation entries to various beneficiaries. The appellants/assessees used to receive cash and thereafter they deposited the said sums in their bank account(s). To launder such black money, they used to transfer the said sums to their sister concerns for camouflaging. After siphoning of such money from one concern to another, the same were refunded back to the beneficiaries in the garb of some make shift transactions. As per para 23 of the Tribunal o....