2016 (11) TMI 1668 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained cash credits u/s 68 - assessee had failed to furnish satisfactory explanation with regard to the identity of the parties and the source and genuineness of the transactions - HELD THAT - Since it was a common point between the parties that the respondent-assessee is also a part of group of entities controlled by Mr. Mukesh Choksi, in our view, the aforesaid precedents are relevant to assess the income of assessee. In this view of the matter, we find that the CIT(A) made no mistake in coming to the impugned decision, which is in conformity with the position upheld by the Tribunal in the group concerns of the instant assessee. Therefore, we hereby affirm the order of CIT(A) and accordingly, Revenue fails in its appeal.

Summary

Issues:
- Addition of unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
- Assessment of commission income in relation to the credits in the bank account.

Analysis:
1. Issue 1 - Addition of unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Income Tax Act:
The appeal by the Revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition of ?478.94 lakhs made on account of unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Act to 0.15%. The Revenue contended that the assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanations regarding the identity of the parties and the source of the transactions. However, the CIT(A) found that the assessee, being part of a group controlled by Mr. Mukesh Choksi, earned commission income for providing accommodation entries. The CIT(A) referred to the accepted modus operandi in the group concerns and directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition to commission income calculated at 0.15% of the total credits in the bank account. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision based on precedents and the consistent application of commission percentages in similar cases.

2. Issue 2 - Assessment of commission income in relation to the credits in the bank account:
The Revenue argued that the onus was on the assessee to establish the credits appearing in the bank account. However, the Tribunal considered precedents, including the case of M/s. Goldstar Finvest Pvt. Ltd., where it was established that commission income should be assessed at 0.15% of total receipts for entities involved in providing accommodation entries. The Tribunal also referred to the case of M/s. Richmond Securities Pvt. Ltd., where the invocation of section 68 of the Act was deemed inappropriate due to the accepted modus operandi of earning income through commissions. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) correctly applied the commission percentage in line with previous decisions and upheld the deletion of the addition under section 68 of the Act.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition of unexplained cash credits to commission income at 0.15% of the total credits in the bank account. The Tribunal relied on precedents and the consistent application of commission percentages in similar cases involving entities controlled by Mr. Mukesh Choksi.