2025 (5) TMI 954 - AT - Income Tax

Addition of Commission income from the accommodation entry business by taking the rate of 1.04% for charging of commission income on the turnover of accommodation entries - HELD THAT - Since commission in the case was settled @ 0.47% for which the AO was directed to follow the directions of the Tribunal as aforesaid. Hence respectfully following the decision in the case of assessee s brother Sh. Anand Kumar Jain 2023 (5) TMI 1186 - ITAT DELHI we set aside the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) in the instant appeal and direct the AO with the similar directions as aforesaid. In the result this ground of appeal raised by the Revenue is rejected. Whether the impugned amount can at best be treated as obtained out of assessee s undisclosed commission income which has already been brought to tax? - We note that on identical issue the Tribunal 2023 (5) TMI 1186 - ITAT DELHI in the case of Sh. Anand Kumar Jain observed that such receipt form part of accommodation entries and that the AO may verify the same. Following the aforesaid precedent we direct the AO to verify the same as stated above.

The core legal questions considered in this appeal pertain primarily to the quantification and taxation of commission income derived from accommodation entry transactions, and the validity of protective additions made on unexplained cash credits. Specifically, the issues are:

1. Whether the addition of commission income at the rate of 2% on the turnover of accommodation entries, as made by the Assessing Officer (AO), is justified, or whether the rate and turnover should be adjusted based on elimination of circular transactions and consideration of actual commission income as reflected in seized tally data.

2. Whether the protective addition of Rs. 3,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credits in the form of unsecured loans should be sustained, given the failure of the assessee to produce directors of the shell companies to verify genuineness and creditworthiness.

Issue 1: Quantification of Commission Income from Accommodation Entry Business

The legal framework involves the assessment provisions under the Income Tax Act, particularly in relation to income computation following search and seizure operations under section 153A. Precedents include the Tribunal's earlier orders in related appeals involving the assessee and his brother, which have established principles for determining commission income from accommodation entries.

The AO had computed commission income at an ad hoc rate of 2% on the turnover of accommodation entries, derived from bank transactions involving shell companies. However, the AO did not eliminate circular transactions fully, and included transactions from a company (M/s Ambarnuj Finance & Investments Pvt. Ltd.) whose assessment was completed without adverse findings.

On appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] accepted the assessee's contention to exclude circular transactions and transactions related to M/s Ambarnuj Finance & Investments Pvt. Ltd. The CIT(A) also examined the seized tally data, particularly the 'short and excess account' which recorded both receipts (credit side) and expenses (debit side) related to commission. While the CIT(A) accepted the gross commission receipts, it disallowed full deduction of expenses, allowing only 30% of gross receipts as expenditure, thus arriving at a net commission rate of 1.04% (1.49% gross less 0.45% expenses) on the turnover.

The assessee challenged this ad hoc disallowance of expenses, contending that the entire expenses recorded in the seized tally data should be allowed as they represent genuine costs incurred in earning commission income. The Tribunal examined the seized data and noted that the AO himself recognized the need to eliminate circular transactions but failed to do so. The CIT(A)'s approach of allowing only 30% of expenses was found to be arbitrary and without logical basis, especially since the expenses and receipts were recorded in the same document.

Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's ruling against selective disclosure ("cherry-picking") of evidence, emphasizing that documents must be read in their entirety to avoid misinterpretation. Applying this principle, the Tribunal held that the entire expenses recorded in the 'short and excess account' should be allowed, resulting in a net commission rate of 0.47% on the adjusted turnover after elimination of circular transactions.

The Tribunal further noted that the facts and incriminating material in the present case are identical to those in the appeals involving the assessee's brother, where the commission rate was settled at 0.47%. Following the principle of stare decisis, the Tribunal directed the AO to apply the same rate and methodology in the instant case.

Thus, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order restricting commission income at 1.04% and directed the AO to compute commission income at 0.47% on the turnover after elimination of circular transactions and exclusion of transactions related to the exonerated company.

Issue 2: Protective Addition on Unexplained Cash Credits

The AO had made a protective addition of Rs. 3,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credits in the form of unsecured loans, citing the assessee's failure to produce directors of the shell concerns to verify the genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness.

The CIT(A) deleted this addition, holding that such amount could at best be treated as part of the assessee's undisclosed commission income, which had already been brought to tax. The Tribunal, referring to its earlier order in the case of the assessee's brother, observed that such receipts form part of accommodation entries and directed the AO to verify the same accordingly.

Accordingly, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's ground challenging the deletion of the protective addition, directing the AO to verify the matter consistent with the precedent.

Significant Holdings and Core Principles

"A document has to be read in its whole prospective but not in such a way that the data seized is interpreted to result in two diametrically opposite derivations."

"The contention of the appellant that expenses side represent the expense incurred by the appellant in arranging accommodation entries is found to be correct. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it will not be appropriate to allow deduction of entire expenses. Accordingly, taking a holistic view, I consider that 30% of the gross commission receipts (@1.49%) are the expenditure incurred for earning commission income." (CIT(A) - held to be arbitrary)

"The entire expenses recorded in the seized tally data shall be allowed, and accordingly the net rate of commission earned by the assessee i.e. 0.47% is the best which can be applied on the turnover of the accommodation entries after elimination of circular transactions."

"Since facts are identical and same search was conducted on both the brothers, we follow the principle of stare decisis and follow the aforesaid order. Hence, the rate of commission in the present cases is determined at 0.47%."

"The impugned amount can at best be treated as obtained out of assessee's undisclosed commission income which has already been brought to tax."

"Selective disclosure (cherry-picking) of documents is impermissible and a document must be read in its entirety to avoid misinterpretation and injustice."

The Tribunal's final determinations are:

1. The addition of commission income shall be computed at the net rate of 0.47% on the turnover of accommodation entries after elimination of circular transactions and exclusion of transactions related to companies whose assessments are complete without adverse findings.

2. The protective addition on unexplained cash credits is to be treated as part of disclosed commission income and is not sustainable as a separate addition; the AO is directed to verify the genuineness accordingly.

3. The Revenue's appeal is dismissed, and the AO is directed to give effect to the order consistent with the principles and directions laid down.

← Previous Next →