9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 787X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd largely depends upon the quantum of entry. We deem just and proper to estimate the average commission @ 0.30% (30 paise to ₹ 1 per ₹ 100) on credit entries appearing in the bank account of the assessee. It is further noted that AO has made double addition to the extent that benefit of netting-off with respect to income already offered by the assessee in the return of income was not allowed. Accordingly, the AO is hereby directed to re-compute the income after allowing benefit of income already declared by the assessee in the return. Charging of interest u/s. 234B and initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) - Held that:- Charging of interest u/s. 234B is consequential in nature, hence, the AO is directed to re-comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erverse to the law and to the facts of the case because of not following proper law and procedure while completing the assessment proceedings. 2. That the AO has grossly erred in law and to the facts of the case in making lump sum addition of ₹ 25,12,597/- being commission income in the hands of the appellant at the rate of 0.60% merely on the basis of his presumption and guess work, without the support of any material either collected or placed upon records, which the ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated while adjudicating the appeal. 3. That the addition made of ₹ 25,12,597/- were only on the basis of presumption and guess work of the AO because the provision of law contained u/s. 145 has never been invoked besides this the AO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any material either collected or ever placed upon records. 8. That no proper and reasonable opportunity, if any was ever afforded by the assessing officer prior proceeded to complete the assessment proceedings arbitrarily capriciously and in a whimsical manner thereby making illegal and impugned additions in the declared income of appellant. 9. That charging of interest under section 234B and initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1) are further wrong as against the law and to the facts of the case and a such same my please be deleted because of being consequential to the illegal addition made and relief claimed there from. 10. That the appellant company assails their right to amend, alter, change any ground of appeal or take any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aise to ₹ 1 per ₹ 100) on total credit in the bank account of the assessee company. The AO has made the addition by holding that the assessee is conduit paper company run by Sh. Vivek Jain and is engaged in the business of providing accommodation entries to various beneficiaries. Thereafter, the AO assessed the income at ₹ 28,21,450/- u/s. 143(3) of the Act and made the addition of ₹ 16,44,240/- on account of commission and ₹ 8,68,357/- on account of undisclosed interest income. Against the aforementioned assessment order dated 31.3.2016, assessee appealed before the ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order dated 31.01.2017 and partly allowed the appeal of the assessee and deleted the addition of ₹ 8,68,35 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further submitted that there is no change in the facts and circumstances and when the AO himself has accepted the affidavit of the Director in immediately preceding Assessment Year 2012-13, the assessment should have been completed at returned income in the year consideration also in accordance with rule of consistence as laid down by the Hon ble Apex court in the case of Radhaswami Satsang vs. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC). In view of above, he submitted that the estimation of commission @ 0.60% is highly excessive and the same is in disregard to the past accepted history. 5. On the contrary, Ld. DR heavily supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that AO was justified in estimating the commission @ 0.60%, which need not to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n case of business of providing accommodation entry, there cannot be a single rate of commission and same vary from case to case and largely depends upon the quantum of entry. 7. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, contention of both the parties and principle of equity and fairness, I deem just and proper to estimate the average commission @ 0.30% (30 paise to ₹ 1 per ₹ 100) on credit entries appearing in the bank account of the assessee. It is further noted that AO has made double addition to the extent that benefit of netting-off with respect to income already offered by the assessee in the return of income was not allowed. Accordingly, the AO is hereby directed to re-compute the income after allowin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
