TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1808
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by the lower authorities are arbitrary, erroneous, without proper reasons, invalid and bad-in-law, to the extent to which they are prejudicial to the interests of the appellant. 2. For that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have properly considered the factual aspect of the case and the provisions of Income Tax Act applicable in the case of the appellant and ought not to have dismissed the appeal on the alleged grounds. 3. For that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the factual aspect of the case and ought not to have confirmed the addition of Rs. 8,90,685/- made by the A.O. on the alleged grounds. 4. For that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have properly considered the factual aspect of the matter of Rs. 8,90,685/- and ought not to have confirmed the treatment given by the A.O. to the transaction treating the same as accommodation entries on the alleged grounds. 5. For that the appellant craves leave to amend, alter, modify, substitute, add to, abridge and/or rescind any or all of the above grounds." II. ITA No. 399/KOL/2025; AY 2018-19: "1. For that the orders passed by the lower authorities are arbitrary, erroneous, without proper reasons, invalid and bad-in-law, to the exten....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... AO. 4. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who directed the Ld. AO to treat 10% of the total amount of bogus accommodation entries of Rs.76,26,846/- provided by the assessee as unaccounted income of the assessee towards commission earned for providing bogus accommodation entry to SINPL, which worked out to Rs.7,62,684/-, and the addition of Rs.77,03,114/- was directed to be restricted to Rs.7,62,684/- as during the course of appeal proceeding, the assessee had filed written submission stating that it had provided accommodation entry to SINPL for Rs.76,26,846/- and contended that the Ld. AO was not justified in treating the entire amount of accommodation entry of Rs.76,26,846/- as income of the assessee and requested that 1% of such amount be treated as commission income in the hands of the assessee towards providing bogus accommodation entry to SINPL. The findings of the Ld. CIT(A) are as under: "7.1 I have given my thoughtful consideration to the issue under dispute and carefully examined the same in the light of the relevant provisions of the statute and the documentary evidence placed on record. 7.2. At the outset, as se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ure of transactions between the assessee firm and M/s. Saakar Infra Nirman Pvt. Ltd. As such, it is not clear who actually provided the bogus accommodation entry and who is the beneficiary of such accommodation entry. 7.6 Faced with this situation, based on the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment, I am of the considered opinion that the assessee had provided bogus accommodation entry to M/s. Saakar Infra Nirman Pvt. Ltd. for Rs. 76,26,846/- towards purchase of goods. Accordingly, after having considered the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the AO is not justified in treating the entire amount of accommodation entry as income of the assessee, that too, as unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C rws 115BBE of the Act, apart from treating 1% of the same as commission expenditure u/s. 69Crws 115BBE of the Act. 7.7 In view of the above, the AO is directed to treat 10% of the total amount of bogus accommodation entry provided by the assessee of Rs. 76,26,846/-, which worked out to Rs. 7,62,684/-, as unaccounted income of the assessee towards commission earned for providing the said bogus accommodation entry to M/s. Saakar Infra Nirm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y SINPL, the disallowance, if any, should have been made in the case of SINPL. There is merit in the argument of the assessee and which is also borne out from the facts of the case that since the assessee was providing accommodation entries, only the profit element on the sale could have been added. The ld. AR was fair enough to admit that a higher amount of 5% may be treated as commission on the transactions of Rs. 34,59,840/-. Accordingly, the Ld. AO is directed to apply the profit rate of 5% on the sales shown which are admitted to be accommodation entries, which works out to Rs. 1,72,992/- and is rounded off to Rs. 1,73,000/- on the transactions of Rs. 34,59,840/- and accordingly, add the same to the income of the assessee disclosed in the return of income in place of Rs. 34,59,840/- added u/s 69C of the Act. Accordingly, Ground nos. 3, 4, & 6 are allowed. 4.2. Ground no. 5 is also accordingly allowed, however, the commission rate of 5% is applied in place of 1% on the bogus accommodation sales bill entries instead of 1% mentioned in the ground of appeal. 4.3. Ground no. 2 relating to the assessment framed u/s 147 of the Act being totally wrong was not pressed and is accord....