9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1384X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITAT MUMBAI] Respectfully following the aforesaid decision, we delete the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) in these cases, as the facts and circumstances being identical, as the commission income assessable in the hands of the assessee has been on estimate basis, no penalty is attracted on the additions/disallowances made on estimate basis. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 19/Mum/2013, ITA No. 20/Mum/2013, ITA No. 21/Mum/2013, ITA No. 22/Mum/2013 - - - Dated:- 9-9-2016 - SHRI G.S.PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAMLAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri Mukesh Choksi For The Respondent : Shri R.P.Meena ORDER PER G.S.PANNU,A.M: These four appeals are filed by the same assessee pert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssion of Income Tax (Appeals) have erred in law and in facts in confirming the additions made under the Act amounting to ₹ 8,43,125/- 5. The learned. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) have erred in law and in facts in confirming the income on gross receipts without reducing the transfer entries amount in bank account MANAGED BY AGENTS from which no income is earned. 6. The learned. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and in facts confirming the additions made by Assessing Officer at 2% on the gross deposits as against 0.15% offered by the appellant 7. The learned. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the act of Assessing Officer of application of the ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 012 2699/Mum/2013 order dated 30/11/2015. (ii) M/s. Mihir Agencies Pvt. Ltd., ITA Nos.6114-6120/Mum/2012 order dated 6/1/2016. (iii) Alliance Intermediateries and Network Pvt. Ltd., ITA Nos. 2700,2702 2701/Mum/2013 order dated 24/2/2016. (iv) Mr. Mukesh Choksi ITA Nos.833 -839/Mum/2013 order dated 04/05/2016. 5. In brief, the background of the dispute is that a search and seizure action under section 132(1) of the Act was conducted in the case of several companies, whose kingpin is identified as one Mr. Mukesh Choksi. It was found in the course of search that such entities were providing accommodation entries by way of share trading/ loans, etc. As the assessee herein also was covered in the search, an assessment under section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessed after allowing 50% of the expenses claimed. It was, therefore, contended that following the decisions of the Co-ordinate Benches rendered in the group concerns of Shri Mukesh Choksi referred above under similar circumstances, the assessed income in this case also be directed to be computed accordingly. 7. On the other hand, Ld. Departmental Representative while not disputing the aforesaid precedents, sought to point out that the other cases were assessed on the basis of the surveys conducted, whereas the instant assessee was covered by the search action under section. 132(1) of the Act. 8. In reply, Ld. Representative for the assessee pointed out that even the group concern cases, relied upon by him, were covered by the sear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ced below: 12. Having, carefully examined the various orders in the case of different assessees' it has become amply clear that in these types of activities, brokers are only concerned with their commission on the value of transactions. Now the question comes what would be the reasonable percentage to the commission on the total turnover? The assessee has also made out a case that the customers do not come directly to him and they come through a sub- broker who also charges a particular share of commission. In all the judgments what has been stated is that an average percentage of commission is between 0.15% to 0.25%. In the case of Palresha Co. and Kiran Co (surpa), the Tribunal has considered reasonableness of percentage of co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espectfully following the orders of the Tribunal including the order of Tribunal in assessee s own case in the immediately preceding year, we find that the ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition, no interference is called for in the order of ld. CIT(A), therefore, the same is upheld. Grounds No.1 and 2 taken by the Revenue stand dismissed. 9.1 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, the aforesaid decisions are relevant to assess the income of the assessee. In this view of the matter, we, therefore, set-aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to recompute the commission income from the busi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
