9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 197X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT(A). We therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) and thus the grounds of assessee are dismissed. - 2012 – 13 - - - Dated:- 24-2-2023 - SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. YOGESH KUMAR US , JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Assessee : None For the Revenue : Shri Avikal Manu , Sr. D. R. ORDER Per Anil Chaturvedi, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 08.02.2018 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, New Delhi relating to Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the material on record are as under:- 3. Assessee is an individual who electronically filed his return of income for A.Y. 2012-13 on 07.06.2012 declarin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant had shown the commission @ 0.40 to 0.45% and the AO has increased the same to 2.5% without assigning any reason. The AR has relied upon the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of JRD Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT. In this context, it is observed that the appellant had shown total receipts of Rs. 18,97,340/- as per the original return filed by him and the appellant claimed to be doing the business of retail trading of edible oil and flour. However, after detailed investigation by the investigation wing and the AO, the appellant admitted that he indulged in the business of providing accommodation entries which included money laundering. The appellant filed revised computation before the AO showing total receipts of Rs. 42.04 c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7538/2012, in which it has been held that- 6. On the basis of ............... 4.4 In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is reiterated that the appellant has miserably failed to justify the rate of commission earned by him from providing accommodation entries/money laundering. The facts of the case are entirely similar to the above referred case of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pratibha Finvest P. Ltd. vs. Ito in which the commission rate of 2% in respect of accommodation hawala entries has been upheld. Following the decision of jurisdictional High Court, the AO is directed to compute the commission income @ 2% of the total receipts and compute the total income accordingly. The ground of appeal is partl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay to day business. The order has been passed in a hurry. The percentage of commission decided by the CIT(A) is on the very high side. Assessee is not satisfied with the order of the CIT(A) and prays your honor to reduce the percentage as held in other cases such as Sanjay Kumar Garg by ITAT Delhi and JRD Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. by DHC, etc. Great injustice has been done with the assessee in deciding the percentage and hence the decision of CIT(A) is totally wrong, bad in law and needs to be quashed. 2. That the assessee prays permission to add, delete or amend one or more grounds of appeal. 3. That the assessee assures unstinted co-operation in all proceedings before your goodself. 6. The case file reveals that the appeal wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
