9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 1502X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4, 7567/MUM/2014, 7568/MUM/2014, 7569/MUM/2014, 7570/MUM/2014 - - - Dated:- 24-8-2016 - Shri Rajendra (AM) And Shri Ram Lal Negi (JM) Appellant by : Shri. Mukesh Chokshi Respondent by : Shri. O.P. Meena ORDER PER BENCH These appeals have been preferred by the assessee against common order dt. 31/10/2014 passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-38, Mumbai, for the Asst. years 2004-05 to 2009-10. Since all these appeals pertain to the same assessee for the different assessment years, the same were clubbed and heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. In all these appeals the assessee has raised the common ground of appeal that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the bank accounts and added the same to the income of the assessee. The assessee challenged the estimate of commission before the Ld. CIT(A) and urged that the commission should be taken @ 0.15% in view of the order of the Tribunal. However, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the A.O., holding that the facts and circumstances on the basis of which the ITAT had determined the commission income @ 0.15% were not similar to the facts of the present case. In second appeal, the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, following its earlier orders, directed the A.O to restrict the estimate @ 0.15% of the turnover. 5. Accordingly, penalty proceedings were initiated against the assessee u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and after hearing the assessee, the AO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as carried out covering all the group entities including the assessee under consideration, that it was found group concerns were engaged in providing accommodation bills/hawala entries, that the assessee did not dispute the said fact, that the AO estimated the income from the accommodation entries @ 2% of the total transactions appearing in the bank accounts of the assessee, that the then FAA confirmed the quantum addition made by the AO, that in the case under consideration the Tribunal had held that commission income should be taken at the rate of 0.15% (ITA /6435/Mum/2012 AY-2004-05 and other six appeals dt.6.1.16). The undisputed fact is that there is difference of opinion as to how much income should be estimated for the hawala entrie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ejection of books of account due to certain discrepancies and imposed a penalty on the assessee of ₹ 36,41,003/-, on the ground that it was a clear case of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The FAA deleted the penalty holding that the addition made by the AO on the basis of estimated profit could not be a subject-matter of penalty for concealment of income. The Tribunal confirmed this order. On appeal, the AO dismissed the appeal and held that the finding arrived at by the Tribunal did not warrant interference as it was purely a finding of fact. In the case of Durga Kamal Rice Mills (265 ITR 25)the Hon ble Calcutta High Court has held as under: When two views are possible and when no clear and definite inference can be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
