2025 (12) TMI 1688

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), pertaining to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09. 2. During the course of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee, nor was any application for adjournment placed on record. This is an old appeal and, therefore, the case is being heard after hearing the Revenue and on the basis of material available on record. 3. Ground no. 1 of the appeal is general in nature. Hence, this ground of appeal needs no adjudication and is dismissed. 4. Brief facts of the case are that: A search & seizure operation under section 132 of the Act was conducted at business premises of companies of Rockland Group as well as at the residential premises of directors of the companies on 06/09/2011. A conseque....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2008-09. It was further noted by the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee had disclosed 0.1% as commission income for providing the said accommodation entries to the tune of Rs. 19,18,00,000/-, but the AO adopted commission @ 0.6%. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the said enhancement made by the AO, but observed that the AO had added the entire 0.6% commission as undisclosed income, instead of the excess of 0.6% over the admitted commission rate of 0.1%. Accordingly, he restricted the addition to the difference of 0.5% on Rs. 19,18,00,000/- and upheld the addition to the extent of Rs. 9,59,000/-, and deleted the balance addition of Rs. 1,91,800/- . The relevant extract of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in para no. 4.2.2. is reproduced as under: " 4.2.2 As ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nly for the A.Y. 2008-09." 6. Aggrieved with the said order, the Department is in appeal before us, on the following ground no. 2 of appeal, which is reproduced as under: " 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CTT(A) has erred in law in restricting the addition amounting to Rs. 9,59,000/- out of total addition of Rs. 11,50,800/- made by the AO on account of commission. 7. The Ld. DR supported the order of the AO and the ground of appeal. 8. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. 8.1 In view of the facts stated by the Ld. CIT(A) and discussed above, we find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A), and the same is upheld. Accordingly, ground no. 2 of the Revenue's appeal i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as also considered the sum of Rs. 19,18,00,000/- credited to the bank statement of the appellant as undisclosed income of the appellant u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act "on protective basis". The A.O. has not indicated in the assessment order, in whose case substantive assessment has been made. However, in any case, since the appellant has submitted that the modus operandi of the appellant was that he was intermediary in the accommodation entry business wherein he has received cheques which was organized by one Sh. H.P. Aggarwal from Kolkata and then passed accommodation entry cheques to the Rockland Group (for which received the commission only) and which the Assessing Officer does not dispute, it would naturally follow that the sum of Rs. 19,....