2016 (9) TMI 1470 - AT - Income Tax

Assessment u/s 153C - Commission income from the business of providing accommodation entry - income by way of commission from the business of accommodation entries being carried out by Mukesh Choksi group - Held that - Since it was a common point between the parties that the appellant company before us is also a part of the entities controlled by Mr. Mukesh Choksi, in our view, we, therefore, set-aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to recompute the commission income from the business of providing accommodation entry in conformity with the aforesaid precedents. Before parting we may also state that while recomputing the total income, the Assessing Officer shall also give effect to the directions of the Tribunal in the precedents regarding the allowability of expenditure claimed. We, therefore, set-aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer to redetermine the total income as per aforesaid directions. Needless to mention, the Assessing Officer shall allow the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard before recomputing the income as per law.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Assessment years 2006-07, 2009-10, and 2010-11; Common issues in three appeals; Clubbing and hearing together; Lead case for Assessment Year 2006-07.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Grounds of Appeal
The appellant raised multiple grounds of appeal challenging the order of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A). The issues included lack of sufficient hearing opportunity, absence of valid satisfaction evidence for issuing notices, incorrect application of income rate, confirmation of additions made under the Act, and errors in confirming income on gross receipts without reducing transfer entries, among others.

Issue 2: Background of Dispute
A search and seizure action under section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act revealed that entities controlled by Mr. Mukesh Choksi, including the appellant, were providing accommodation entries and earning commission income. The Assessing Officer estimated the commission income at 2% based on total receipts in the bank account, resulting in an assessment of ?5,25,700 for the year 2006-07.

Issue 3: Arguments
The appellant contended that similar additions in other group concerns were assessed at a lower rate based on previous Tribunal decisions. The appellant argued for a reduced commission rate of 0.15% and the allowance of 50% of claimed expenses, following the decisions in related cases.

Issue 4: Tribunal's Decision
The Tribunal reviewed previous cases involving Mr. Mukesh Choksi's group entities and directed that commission income from accommodation entries should be assessed at 0.15% instead of 2%. The Tribunal upheld the appellant's contentions, citing previous judgments and setting aside the CIT(A)'s order. The Assessing Officer was instructed to recompute the income in line with the Tribunal's directions and allow the appellant a fair hearing.

Issue 5: Outcome
The Tribunal allowed the appeal for the year 2006-07, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order and directing the reassessment of income. The decision in this case was deemed applicable to the appeals for the years 2009-10 and 2010-11, resulting in the allowance of all appeals.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision favored the appellant, emphasizing the importance of consistency in assessing commission income and ensuring a fair opportunity for the appellant during the reassessment process.