9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 476X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cause the assessee was working with Bajaj Group and since the alleged accommodation entries are admittedly in the name of family members of the assessee, such commission income for providing accommodation entries in fact belongs to respective family members and such family member is already accounting for interest income in respect of the alleged accommodation entries and such interest income already taken into account by the family members is at the rate of 12% whereas the commission is said to have been received at the rate of 5% only. Under this factual position, we are of the considered opinion that separate addition made in the hands of the assessee on account of alleged payment in respect of alleged accommodation entries is not justified because even if the loan provided by the family members of the assessee to Bajaj Group is not actual loan and is only accommodation entry then also, the commission on such accommodation entry belongs to the respective family member and that family member has already included in his income interest @ 12% and alleged commission payment of 5% is not in addition to interest of 12%. We, therefore, delete this addition in the present case - Decided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eported in Income Tax Appeal No. 30 of 2011 dated 23.08.2011. He submitted a copy of this judgment of the Hon ble Allahabad High Court. He further submitted that SLP was filed by the Revenue against this judgment of the Hon ble Allahabad High Court before the Hon ble Supreme Court and it was dismissed in SLP No. 6080 of 2012 dated 02.12.2014. He submitted a copy of this judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court about dismissal of SLP in the case of CIT vs. Madhu Chawla (Supra). He pointed out that it is now law of land as per this judgment of Hon ble Apex Court because in this judgment, the dismissal of SLP is by way of a speaking order since the judgment says that upon hearing, the court made the following order delay condoned, dismissed . He submitted that as per this judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court, the judgment of the Hon ble Allahabad High Court rendered in the case of Madhu Chawla (Supra) and in the case of CIT Vs Vandana Verma (Supra) stands approved by the Hon ble Apex Court and since in the present case also, search warrant was issued in joint names, the individual assessment framed in the present case is not valid. 4. In reply, it was submitted by the Ld. DR of the Revenu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce to these two judgments of the Division Bench of the Hon ble High Court and as per this judgment of the larger Bench of the Hon ble Allahabad High Court, the issue in dispute is covered against the assessee because it was held by larger Bench of the Hon ble Allahabad High Court in that case that even where the warrant of authorization has been issued jointly, the assessment can be made individually. 7. Now, we are left with the judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Madhu Chawla (Supra) in course of deciding the SLP filed by the Revenue against the judgment of the Hon ble Allahabad High Court rendered in the case of Madhu Chawla (Supra). We find that as per this judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court, the SLP of the Revenue was dismissed without any discussion and this is by now a settled position of law that when the SLP is dismissed by the Hon ble Apex Court without any discussion, such judgment of Hon ble Apex Court is binding in the case in which it was rendered but does not lay down a law of land. Moreover, the Division Bench judgments of the Hon ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vandana Verma (Supra) and Madhu Chawla (Supra) were ren ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the assessee on account of commission in respect of accommodation entries provided by the family members of the assessee and interest was provided by the borrower Bajaj Group and TDS was deducted wherever applicable and respective family member has considered such interest income in his/her return of income which is at the rate of 12% and this is not the case of the Revenue that commission of 5% allegedly paid by the Bajaj Group on alleged accommodation entries is over and above the interest at the rate of 12% provided by the borrower Bajaj Group. He also submitted that this is also admitted position that although provision of interest has been made for at the rate of 12% by the Bajaj Group but no payment was made by the Bajaj Group to the family members of the assessee in whose names, entries/loan was accounted for in the books of account of the Bajaj Group and even in two cases as noted by the AO on Page 8 of the assessment order, some cheques were given by the Bajaj Group to the family members of the assessee but cheques of equivalent amount or higher amount was given back to the same or different company of Bajaj Group and therefore, the only amount received on account of su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the assessee because the assessee was working with Bajaj Group and since the alleged accommodation entries are admittedly in the name of family members of the assessee, such commission income for providing accommodation entries in fact belongs to respective family members and such family member is already accounting for interest income in respect of the alleged accommodation entries and such interest income already taken into account by the family members is at the rate of 12% whereas the commission is said to have been received at the rate of 5% only. Under this factual position, we are of the considered opinion that separate addition made in the hands of the assessee on account of alleged payment in respect of alleged accommodation entries is not justified because even if the loan provided by the family members of the assessee to Bajaj Group is not actual loan and is only accommodation entry then also, the commission on such accommodation entry belongs to the respective family member and that family member has already included in his income interest @ 12% and alleged commission payment of 5% is not in addition to interest of 12%. We, therefore, delete this addition in the pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
