9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 638X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ings recorded by CIT(A) for arriving at this conclusion. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of CIT(A) for upholding the net commission to the income of 2.4%. In view of the above, ground taken by the assessee with regard to estimation of commission rate are hereby dismissed. - ITA No.2637 to 2644/Mum/2011, ITA No.2833 to 2840/Mum/2011 - - - Dated:- 6-4-2016 - SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM For The Assessee : None For The Revenue : Shri N.P.Singh ORDER PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): These are the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue against the order of CIT(A), Mumbai, for the assessment years 2000-2001 to 2007-2008. 2. Nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee instead of giving various opportunities. On earlier occasions adjournments were also granted at the request of the assessee. The case was fixed on 2-12-2014, wherein ld. AR asked for adjournment and at his request case was adjournment to 25-5-2015. On 25-5-2015 none appeared on behalf of the assessee, therefore, once again case was adjourned to 10-12-2015. The assessee was issued notice by RPAD, however, none appeared on the date fixed for hearing i.e. o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2001-2002 28.04.2008 1,09,273 15,40,909 3 2002-2003 28.04.2008 1,61,610 1,59,10,056 4 2003-2004 28.04.2008 3,25,326 2,25,78,906 5 2004-2005 29.04.2008 13,02,498 3,95,21,741 6 2005-2006 29.04.2008 9,53,045 4,93,41,451 7 2006-2007 28.04.2008 7,42,383 5,01,89,960 8 2007-2008 30.03.2009 2,48,920 1,61,03,620 In the course of assessment proceedings special audit was directed to be carried out u/s.142(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The audit was carried out by the auditors appointed. The assessing officer made a detailed analysis of various bank accounts of various entities fully controlled by the assessee and the summary of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sued. For this proposition the A.O cited the reference of J ayant B.Patel who was one of the beneficiaries of the accommodation entries given by the appellant. In para 14.1 of the assessment order for A.Y.2006-07 the A.O stated that Jayant B.Patel had admitted to have paid 7% commission for obtaining the long term capital gains. In response to the AOs proposal the appellant stated that the commission received from Jayant B.Patel was 2% and not 7%. Secondly, he produced the confirmation of the middlemen Mr.Niraj Kanthilal Shah to the effect that only 2% was paid by him to the appellant. The appellant produced this middlemen before the A.O. All these facts are narrated in the assessment order by the A.O. The assessing officer further admits in the assessment order that J ayant B.Patel has admitted to have obtained the long term capital gains through the middlemen Niraj Kantilal Shah In the cross examination also Jayant B.Patel was stated to have paid 2 to 3% as commission for obtaining the artificial long term capital gains. The A.O. further made reference of two parties namely Sunil Pachigar and Mr .Narrotam Shah who has stated to have paid 5 0 as commission for obtaining the long ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut the amount of gross commission which was substantially higher. It is an admitted fact on record that the appellant was not maintaining any books of account 'and therefore the expenses were claimed on adhoc estimation and the gross commission was also estimated on adhoc percentage basis. The whole things are based on estimation. The A.O. increased the estimation of gross commission by taking higher figure but did not increase 'the expenses correspondingly. The appellant claimed expenses @20% of gross commission for speculation profit entries and 50% of gross commission for long term capital gains where the incidence of expense was started to be higher. I also perused the Hon'ble ITAT s order in the case of Sumermal R.Jain (Supra) wherein the claim of expenses on adhoc basis of the gross commission determined was' considered. In that case the assessee claimed the expenses @25% of the gross commission. The A.O estimated 'the commission income @1% but did not allow any expenses. The ITAT considering the claim of expenses reduced the final estimation of income @ 0.5% of the bank deposits. The said assessee was also found to be involved in giving bogus hawala entri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 218,139 6,156,544 1,231,308 4,925,236 4 2003-2004 204,456,366 6,133,690 1,226,738 4,906,952 5 2004-2005 179,636,035 5,389,081 1,077,816 4,311,265 6 2005-2006 397,581,228 11,927,437 2,385,487 9,541,950 7 2006-2007 383,582,234 11,507,467 2,301,493 9,205,974 8 2007-2008 70,120,944 2,103,628 420,725 1,682,903 Total 1,498,217,346 44,946,519 8,989,300 35,957,219 Ld. AO is directed to give effect after due verification of facts and figures as discussed above. The ground Nos. 1,4 and 5 of the appeals for A.Y.2000-2001 to 2006-2007 and the groun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
