9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 391X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and then to again file the appeal against the order passed under section 154 before the Ld. CIT(A) and then before the Tribunal. AO in order passed under section 154 of the Act has duly complied with the order passed by the Tribunal to the extent of ground pressed by the assessee before the Tribunal as to restricting the rate of commission from 2% to 0.15% and has rightly dismissed the appeal under section 154 of the Act. Likewise the Ld. CIT(A) has also rightly dismissed the appeal by withholding the order passed by the AO. Since the assessee has himself not pressed the issue as to allowability of 50% of the expenses against the income earned in the original appeal filed before the Tribunal vide appeal for for A.Y. 2004-05 to A.Y 201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e learned assessing officer and CIT (A) has erred in law and in facts while passing the order to allow transfer of funds to the sister concerns. 2. The learned assessing officer and CIT (A) has erred in law and in facts while passing the order u/s. 154 by not allowing the expenses even though the ITAT have passed orders to allow expenses to the extent of 50% against income assessed at 0.15% of the turnover. 3. The learned assessing officer and CIT (A) has erred in law and in facts while passing the order u/s. 154 and facts that tribunal has passed order to apply ratio of expenses to be allowed against the income assessed @0.15 and orders of sister concerns are to be applied mutatis mutandis. 4. The Learned assessing off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plied Mutatis Mutandis in the case of the assessee. 11. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend and / or delete in all the foregoing grounds of appeal. 3. Briefly stated facts necessary for adjudication of the issue at hand are: on the basis of search and seizure operation carried out under section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act ) in case of group companies owned by the assessee Mukesh Chokshi on 25.11.2009 assessment proceedings under section 153A read with section 143(3) of the Act were initiated and completed. In the assessment order Assessing Officer (AO) proceeded to conclude that the assessee and the group company of the assessee were engaged in the business of accommodation entries and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vide order dated 01.06.2017 under section 154 of the Act. 8. Again the assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing appeals challenging the order passed by the AO under section 154 of the Act who has dismissed the same. Feeling aggrieved assessee has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing present appeals. 9. We have heard the Ld. Authorised Representatives of the parties to the appeal, perused the orders passed by the Ld. Lower Revenue Authorities and documents available on record in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable thereto. 10. Undisputedly, assessee s appeals for A.Y. 2004-05 to A.Y 2010-11 were decided by the Tribunal in ITA No.833 to 839/M/2013 by returning fol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocuments. Thus, on the basis of his detail discussions and material on record, the AO held that, the assessee and the Group companies run by him were receiving commission income from for all these activities. Such a commission income was ranging between 1.5% to 3.5%. The AO accordingly rejected the books of account of the assessee and estimated the net profit rate of the commission @ 2%, which according to the assessee was 0.15%. Before the CIT(A), the assessee filed various decisions passed by the CIT(A) in Group companies, wherein, 0.15% of the commission rate has been accepted. However, the Ld. CIT(A) did not accept the assessee s contention and confirmed the estimate made by the AO. 5. On the perusal of the impugned orders and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led by the assessee are treated as partly allowed. 11. It is also not in dispute that against the aforesaid order dated 04.05.2016 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in case of the assessee qua the same assessment years i.e. for A.Y. 2004-05 to A.Y 2010-11, miscellaneous petition was filed before the Tribunal which was also dismissed vide order dated 07.04.2017 as duly recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) in para 4 of the impugned order and this fact has not been controverted by the Ld. A.R. for the assessee. 12. In the backdrop of the aforesaid undisputed facts when the grounds raised by the assessee in the present appeals that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in not allowing the expenses to the extent of 50% of the tu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
