9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1693X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same assessee, for the sake of convenience; these appeals were heard together and disposed of by this consolidated order. 2. I.T.A. No.887/Mum/2012(By Revenue) Grounds taken by the Revenue in this appeal read as under: "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.CIT(A) erred in restricting the addition of Rs. 370.69 lakhs made on account of unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act to 0.15% without appreciating that the assessee had failed to furnish satisfactory explanation with regard to the identity of the parties and the sources and genuineness of the transactions 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.CIT(A) erred in restricting the addition to the commission inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see. It is noted by us that identical issue had came up before the Tribunal in assessee's own case for the assessment year 2002-03. The relevant observations from the Tribunal's order are reproduced below: "12. Having, carefully examined the various orders in the case of different assessees' it has become amply clear that in these types of activities, brokers are only concerned with their commission on the value of transactions. Now the question comes what would be the reasonable percentage to the commission on the total turnover? The assessee has also made out a case that the customers do not come directly to him and they come through a sub- broker who also charges a particular share of commission. In all the judgments what has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s issue has been unanimously accepted by the Tribunal in various cases including the case of assessee. Nothing has been brought on record by the ld. DR to distinguish these cases. Therefore, respectfully following the orders of the Tribunal including the order of Tribunal in assessee's own case in the immediately preceding year, we find that the ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition, no interference is called for in the order of ld. CIT(A), therefore, the same is upheld. Grounds No.1 and 2 taken by the Revenue stand dismissed. 7. I.T.A. No.2699/Mum/2013(by the assessee) Following Grounds have been taken in the appeal memo: "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order of AO; 2. On t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne through the orders of authorities below and the orders of co-ordinate bench of Tribunal in assessee's own case. It is noted by us that an identical issue had came up before the Tribunal in assessee's own case for the assessment years mentioned above. For the sake of convenience, we reproduce the relevant part of the order cited above: "9. Assessee preferred appeals before the CIT(A) for all these years. Learned CIT(A) after considering the submissions confirmed the addition made at the rate of 0.15% as the same was made on the direction of the- Tribunal in other cases. However, learned CIT(A) found that the expenses claimed by the assessee in its profit and loss account were disallowed on ad hoc basis. Therefore, he allowed 20% of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
