TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 667X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es. - ITA Nos.1226 & 1227/Del/2014, C.O. Nos. 388 & 389/Del/2014 - - - Dated:- 13-3-2018 - Sh. Bhavnesh Saini, Judicial Member And Sh. O. P. Kant, Accountant Member Department : by Sh. Vijay Verma, CIT(DR) Assessee by : Sh. Suresh Kumar Gupta, CA ORDER Per O. P. Kant, A. M. These appeals by the Revenue and cross objections by the assessee are directed against 2 (two) separate orders dated 12/12/2013 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XXXII, New Delhi [in short the Ld. CIT-(A) ] for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively. The grounds raised in appeals and cross objection are common and identical in same set of circumstances, accordingly these appeals and cross objections were heard together and dispose off by way of this consolidated order for convenience. 2. The grounds of appeal and cross objection for assessment year 2008-09 are reproduced as under: 2.1 Grounds of appeal raised in ITA No. 1226/Del/2014 are as under: 1. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts of the case in reducing the commission income earned by providing accommodation entries to 2% from 5.6% on the total turnover take ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s were commenced. During assessment proceeding also, the assessee accepted the fact of providing accommodation entries to various beneficiaries. The Assessing Officer has reproduced statement of the assessee dated 26/04/2010 and 04/02/2013, along with statements of Sh. Rakesh Gupta and other relative/employee including, Sh. Ashish Garg, Ms. Kanchan Garg, Sh. Amit Gupta, Sh. Shashank Mittal, Sh. Yugal Gupta and Ms. Manju Gupta. The assessee also filed affidavits from those persons stating that their proprietary concerns were engaged in issuing bogus bills without actual delivery of goods. 2.5 During assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer gathered information from the bank accounts of the proprietary concerns controlled by of the assessee and Sh. Rakesh Gupta and found the credit entries of ₹ 154.50 crores, which were found to be slightly lower than the turnover of ₹ 155.28 crores as appearing in the books of accounts of the assessee (Rs. 81.93 croes ) and Sh. Rakesh Gupta (Rs. 73.35 crores), accordingly, he accepted the quantum of turnover declared by the assessee as well as Sh. Rakesh Gupta in their books of account for computing amount of the commission earne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ings u/s 153A on 04.02.2013, the appellant though conclusively readmitted his stand that he was engaged in the business/activity of providing accommodation entries, differed with regard to the receipt of rate of percentage of commission. In the former statement it was stated that the gross commission earned was 25 paise to 75 paise whereas in the latter statement, the same was stated to be at 25 paise to 50 paise. In the course of assessment proceedings also, vide submissions dated 4.03.2013, the appellant reiterated his stand that the gross margin of commission earned by him from the activities of accommodation entries varied from 0.25% to 0.50%. On the basis of seized documents, the Assessing Officer found that the appellant was charging commission anywhere between 2% to 18%. On the basis of the seized documents, the Assessing Officer prepared a tabular form of chart mentioning herein the amount of commission charged from various parties and incorporated the same in the assessment order and worked out the percentage of weighted average commission charged by the appellant at 5.67%. It is also seen that before applying the percentage of commission at the rate of 5.67% on the total ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceived by the assessee for the period from 04/04/2006 to 31/07/2007 is duly recorded. 5. On the contrary, the Ld. counsel of the assessee filed a paper book containing pages 1 to 409 and reiterated the submission made before the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A). He submitted that following submission of the assessee have not been considered by both the authorities: (i) The statement of assessee that net commission income of ₹ 0.25 percent to 0.50% was only earned. (ii) The seized documents where no commission was charged, have not been taken into account, while computing the weighted average rate of commission of 5.67% by the Assessing Officer. (iii) Receipt of commission on sale bills issued has only been computed by the assessing officer without considering the commission paid on getting purchase bills. (iv) Effect of VAT/CST on such sales bills issued or purchase bills taken has not been considered. (v) The income already offered in the return of income has not been reduced from the income estimated by the Assessing Officer. 6. We have heard the rival submission and perused the relevant material on record. In our opinion, the dispute is only in res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
