2024 (12) TMI 1533

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of 71 days in filing the appeal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee filed an Affidavit which is reproduced as under: 3. Going over the affidavit and the principle led down by the apex court in a catena of decision that a case should be decided on merit not on technical issue, the delay is here by condoned. To Date - 29/11/2028 The Assistant Registrar I.T.A.T., Kolkata 225C, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata-700 020 Ref.: PAN-AALCS4233R/A.Y. 2010-11 Sub.: Request for Condonation of delay. Respected Sir/Madam, With due respect we would like to inform your Goodself that an order u/s 250 of the Act was passed on 26/07/2023 and the due date for filing appeal on o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d notice u/s 148 was issued. In compliance with the notice u/s 148 the assessee filed return of income declaring total income of Rs. 26,90,090/-. Again notices along with requisitions were issued to the assessee, but there was not compliance as a result of which, the undisclosed commission income on such accommodation entries @1.0% as per prevailing market rate worked out to Rs. 87,86590/- and the same is added back to the total income of the assessee as undisclosed commission income. 4. The assessee challenged the impugned order before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been partly allowed by observing that the estimation of 1% to be quite reasonable especially when the director of the assessee company has himself adm....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ation entries @ 1.0% as per the prevailing market rate. The main contention of the assessee is that it should be 0.15% which was already accepted by the department. We have gone through the order passed by the NFAC for AY 2011-112 against the same assessee and fined that in the said assessment year the Ld. CIT(A) has directed the AO to take the percentage @ 0.15% and not @ 1% as admitted by him. The operative portion of the said order is thus: DECISION Ground no 1 is as: "That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in adding commission of Rs 13,78,679/- i.e. @ 1 percent instead of 0.10 percent to 0.15 percent which was already been accepted by the investigation wing." ....