9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 689X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nexplained as per Section 68. Unexplained cash deposits which has to be restricted to peak relating to addition u/s 68, the same is also not proved by the assessee before the Assessing Officer as well as before the CIT(A). Thus, CIT(A) rightly rejected the said claim. As regards the As regards, stand taken by the Revenue in Noida charge group cases, the same is rightly rejected as the assessee could not prove as to how the same will be applicable in assessee s case relating to credit entries in bank account including cash deposits - Decided against assessee. - I.T.A. No. 768 /DEL/2016 & I.T.A. No. 769/DEL/2016 - - - Dated:- 16-7-2021 - MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appellant by : None Respondent by : Sh. H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM These two appeals are filed by the assessee against the order dated 27/11/2015 passed by CIT(A)-30, New Delhi for assessment year 2003-04 2004-05 respectively. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:- I.T.A. No. 768 /DEL/2016 1. That the CIT(A) erred in upholding the order of the Assessing Officer determining the commission income @ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... added as transactions of deposit and of giving entries are two sides of same transaction and, therefore, addition made on account of cash deposits ought to have been deleted. 7. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that there is no question of proving identity and credit worthiness of the parties in relation of cash deposits which deposits are admittedly part business of providing accommodation entry and, therefore, he has erred in taking a view that appellant has not been able to provide required information in regard to cash deposits. He also failed to appreciate the directions of ITAT in this regard. 8. That the CIT(A) also erred in not restricting the addition in respect of cash deposits with reference to peak credit as per directions of the Hon ble ITAT vide order dated 18.10.2013. 9. That the CIT(A) also failed to appreciated that considering the cash deposits as income is also contrary to the stand taken by the Department while passing the assessment orders in Noida Charge, in the cases of Group, in which cases commission income has been determined with reference to credit entries in bank account including the cash deposits. 10. That the orders passed by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. That the CIT(A) also failed to appreciate that since the Assessing Officer has already considered commission income on the amount of accommodation entries, cash deposited in the bank account of ₹ 75,10,400/- cannot be added as transactions of deposit and of giving entries are two sides of same transaction and, therefore, addition made on account of cash deposits ought to have been deleted. 7. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that there is no question of proving identity and credit worthiness of the parties in relation of cash deposits which deposits are admittedly part business of providing accommodation entry and, therefore, he has erred in taking a view that appellant has not been able to provide required information in regard to cash deposits. He also failed to appreciate the directions of ITAT in this regard. 8. That the CIT(A) also erred in not restricting the addition in respect of cash deposits with reference to peak credit as per directions of the Hon ble ITAT vide order dated 18.10.2013. 9. That the CIT(A) also failed to appreciated that considering the cash deposits as income is also contrary to the stand taken by the Department while passing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmission income may be determined as per the precedence in this regard. Before the Tribunal the assessee had submitted that rate of commission in the trade of providing commission entries was about 0.25%. In this regard certain decisions and copy of assessment order had also been submitted wherein the Department / Appellate authorities had accepted the rate of commission ranging from 25 paise per hundred to 50 paise per hundred. The Assessing Officer has passed the impugned order pursuant to the directions of Tribunal. During the course of proceedings before the Assessing Officer the assessee had submitted a statement giving nature-wise categorization of all credit entries in its bank account wherein it had categorized the same with reference to accounting entries received from Group entities and credit entries which could be explained and other credit entries on the basis of which commission income could be calculated. The assessee had submitted that commission income may be determined at 0.25% i.e. 25 paise per hundred keeping in view the appellate and assessment orders in the case of other assesses who were also in the trade of providing accommodation entries. The Assessing Offi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. Thus, though the Tribunal has given opportunity to the assessee for establishing three ingredients that of, identity, creditworthiness and genuineness, the same were not established by the assessee relating to cash deposits before the Assessing Officer as well as before the CIT(A). Therefore, the CIT(A) has rightly held that cash deposited in the bank account of the assessee remained unexplained as per Section 68 of the Act. As regards the unexplained cash deposits which has to be restricted to peak relating to addition u/s 68, the same is also not proved by the assessee before the Assessing Officer as well as before the CIT(A). Thus, CIT(A) rightly rejected the said claim. As regards the stand taken by the Revenue in Noida charge group cases, the same is rightly rejected as the assessee could not prove as to how the same will be applicable in assessee s case relating to credit entries in bank account including cash deposits. Thus, the appeal of the assessee for A.Y. 2003-04 being ITA No. 768/Del/2016 is dismissed. 8. As regards ITA No. 769/Del/2016 for A.Y. 2004-05, the same is identical to that of A.Y. 2004-05 and there are no distinguishing facts emerging from the orders o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
