9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1521X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de at their hands. That being the case, protective additions made at the hands of the assessee cannot survive.
While considering identical issue on similar facts, the companies, allegedly managed and controlled by Jain Brothers in the cases of M/s. Shivji Garments Pvt. Ltd.[2024 (2) TMI 454 - ITAT DELHI] and ACIT Vs. M/s. Zed Enterprises (P) Ltd [2024 (1) TMI 1442 - ITAT DELHI] has upheld the decision of the Ld. CIT (A) in deleting the addition.
In the present cases, the facts are being identical, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of Ld. CIT(A), in deleting the additions. Accordingly, revenue grounds are dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the substantive addition of Rs. 3,54,594 /- made by the AO without considering the fact that the assessee that assessee being a conduit concern, would have earned commission income for the transactions. Cross objection No. 87/Del/2022 "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] is bad both in the eye of law and on facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the order passed by the learned Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 143(3) read with section 153C is without ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d CIT (A) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the explanations and evidences brought on record by the assessee to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the lenders and genuineness of the transactions. (ii) That the abovesaid addition has been confirmed ignoring the fact that the addition has been made by the AO without pointing out any defect in the evidences filed by the assessee. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) has erred both on facts and in law in holding that the assessee is involved in providing and taking accommodation entries in the form of share application money or unsecured loans." 4. Briefly the facts are, the assessee is a resident corporate entity and stated to be enga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee by invoking section 68 of the Act and added them back to the income of the assessee. Further, he observed that while providing such accommodation entries to various beneficiaries, the assessee must have received commission. Accordingly, he estimated the unaccounted commission income by applying rate of 0.25% to the total credit entries. However, he held that the additions have to be made on protective basis at the hands of the assessee. Whereas, they have to be made on substantive basis at the hands of the beneficiaries. In like manner, the AO has made additions in all the assessment years under dispute. 5. Being aggrieved with the additions made, the assessee preferred appeals before the CIT (A) where the assessee furnish ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT(A). In this context, she placed on record the following decisions of the Tribunal: 1. DCIT vs Third Generation Traders Pvt. Ltd., ITA Nos. 2413 to 2418/Del/2024, order dated 20.09.2024. 2. ACIT Vs. M/s. ZED Enterprises (P) Ltd., ITA No. 208 to 2012/Del/2022, order dated 09.01.2024. 3. DCIT Vs. M/s. Shivji Garments Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 9639 to 9642/Del/2019, order dated 06.02.2024 8. Further, she submitted, that in respect of some of the beneficiaries also substantive addition made by the Assessing Officer, has been confirmed by the Tribunal. She submitted, even substantive addition of commission income made at the hands of the Jain Brothers, has been confirmed by the Tribunal. 9. We have heard the rival submissions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Rs. 14,18,37,75/- is directed to be deleted. 7. In ground nos. 12, the appellant has challenged the addition made by the AO of Rs. 3,54,594/-. The AO in the assessment order has made an addition on account of commission income of Rs. 3,54,594/- on account of commission income @0.25% of the total credits of Rs. 14,18,37,753/- received from various parties. 7.1. In this regard, it has already been held in para 6.4. of this order that the addition on account of commission income has already been made in the hands of Anand Kumar Jain and Naresh Kumar Jain as these two persons were operating appellant company as conduit for providing accommodation entries. Having held that these two persons were operating these compan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
