9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 262X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee agreed that it has earned commission of 0.15% to 0.25%. In absence of any material in support of such claim and in view of aforesaid findings, we deem it appropriate to direct the Assessing Officer to consider 0.25% as net profit rate/commission from the alleged accommodation entry transaction and to compute the taxable income accordingly. As during the course of hearing, learned AR has also prayed that expenditure to an extent of 50% be allowed by placing reliance on the aforesaid decisions rendered by coordinate bench of the Tribunal. However, in the present case, it is evident that the assessee nowhere provided the details of expenditure incurred for earning the commission income from accommodation entry transaction. It is only now in the appellate proceedings before us, claim has been made to allow expenditure to an extent of 50%, without filing any supporting details, by placing reliance on decisions rendered in case of some other assessee. Thus, in view of the above, we do not agree with the submissions of the assessee in this regard. Thus, as a result, grounds No. 1 4 raised in assessee s appeal are partly allowed. - ITA No.948/Mum./2018 - - - Dated:- 4-8-2022 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee filed her return of income on 02/01/2015 declaring total income of Rs 1,99,560. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was observed that assessee has deposited cash of Rs. 2,97,35,000 in her saving bank accounts maintained with Indian Bank and ICICI Bank. The assessee was asked to explain the source of such cash deposits in her saving bank accounts. In assessee s statement recorded on oath under section 131 of the Act, it was stated that her husband Shri Vijay Udaykumar Udani was handling the operation of these accounts and she was not aware of the details and source of such cash deposits. Thereafter, the statement on oath of assessee s husband was also recorded under section 131 of the Act. In his statement, assessee s husband submitted that he has given RTGS entry from his wife s bank accounts in lieu of cash received from one Shri Mohammed in favour of various entities. In absence of identity and whereabouts of the entities/beneficiaries as well as confirmation regarding these transactions, the Assessing Officer, vide order dated 28/12/2016 passed under section 143(3) of the Act, made addition of Rs. 2,97,35,000 by treating the said amount as unexplained cash cre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned AR relied upon decisions of coordinate bench of Tribunal in Mihir Agencies Private Limited vs DCIT, ITA Nos. 6435 to 6441/Mum/2012 and Gold Star Finvest Private Limited vs DCIT, ITA No. 6114 to 6120/Mum/2012, wherein the coordinate bench of the Tribunal, following decisions rendered in the cases of group concerns, accepted commission at the rate of 0.15% in case of taxpayer involved in providing accommodation entries. The learned AR further relied upon the decision of Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court in PCIT vs Alag Securities Private Limited, ITA No. 1512 of 2017, judgement dated 12/06/2020, wherein the Hon‟ble High Court, after noting that the cash amounts deposited by the customers had been accounted for in the assessment orders of these customers, upheld consideration of 0.15% of the commission as income of the taxpayer. 9. In the present case, the assessee could neither produce any of the beneficiaries nor could produce any confirmation letter in support of the transaction. It has not been disputed that the assessee s husband is also an accommodation entry provider. The Revenue could not bring anything on record to deny the statement of the assessee that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribunal considered the facts of the case, which are in context not similar to the present case. As in the case cited supra before the Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court, the cash deposits were already accounted for in the assessment orders of the beneficiaries. Further, as noted above, coordinate bench of the Tribunal has followed the judicial precedents in group concern s case. Though, it can be accepted that in case of accommodation entry provider only commission can be considered as the taxable income, however, the rate of commission considered justifiable in other cases cannot be readily accepted in the present case, particularly when the assessee neither could prove the identity of the person from where the cash has been received nor could provide whereabouts of the beneficiaries to whom the money was transferred through cheque/RTGS. As noted above, in proceedings before the learned CIT(A), the assessee agreed that it has earned commission of 0.15% to 0.25%. In absence of any material in support of such claim and in view of aforesaid findings, we deem it appropriate to direct the Assessing Officer to consider 0.25% as net profit rate/commission from the alleged accommodat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
