9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 342X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n has been rejected and the appeal is being disposed-off by hearing the Ld. DR and perused the records. 3. The issues raised in these appeals are common and connected. Hence, by this common order, we are disposing-off the appeals. 4. For the sake of reference, we are referring to AY 2012-13:- ITA No.411/Mum/2021 for AY 2012-13:- 5. The issue raised is that ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition on bogus transaction of the assessee @2% instead of 0.01% as admitted by the assessee. 6. Brief facts of the case are that during the assessment proceedings, the AO observed that a search action u/s. 132 of the Income tax Act was carried out in the case of Shri Vallabh Pittie Group (herein referred to as SVP group) on 22.08.2017. During the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was of the view that the appellant was not able to give any cogent explanation as to how the goods were procured and sold to various parties. Therefore, the AO rejected the books of account u/s. 145(3) of the Act and estimated the net profit at 2% from the bogus transactions of purchases and sales. Accordingly, the AO made an addition of Rs. 45,13,854/- (erroneously taken as Rs. 45,13,85,432/-by the AO)." 7. Upon assessee's appeal, Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the AO's action by holding as under:- "The facts of the case are that that a search action u/s.132 of the Income-tax Act was carried out in the case of Shri Vallabh Pittie Group (hereinafter referred to as SVP group) on 22.08.2017. During the course of search, various incriminating documen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... viding accommodation entries of sales and purchases to various parties including SVP group. During the appellate proceedings, the it was contended by the appellant that he had accepted the addition of commission income @ 0.01% of the total transactions. Now, the question that remains to be decided is with respect to the actual rate of percentage of commission for providing accommodation entries. The appellant had stated that he used to get commission @0.01% of the transaction value, however, the appellant had not provided any documentary proof for the same. The AO had arrived at 2% rate of commission on the basis of the prevailing market practice. In the absence of any documentary proof, the rate of commission adopted by the appellant @0.01 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
