9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 896X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has erred on facts and in law in estimating the commission income of the appellant @0.80% of the amount of Rs. 83,71,29,511/- amounting to Rs. 66,97,036/-. 2. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal. ITA NO. 1628/DEL/2015 (AY 2011-12) (ASSESSEE'S APPEAL) 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in estimating the commission income of the appellant @0.80% of the amount of Rs. 213,01,14,122/- amounting to Rs. 1,70,40,912/-. 2. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal. ITA NO. 1629/DEL/2015 (AY 2012-13) (ASSESSEE'S APPEAL) 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in estimating the commission income of the appellant @0.80% of the amount of Rs. 632,73,87,632/- amounting to Rs. 9,49,10,815/-. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts in law in confirming addition of Rs. 3,16,45,606/- out of the seized cash / pay orders and has further erred in not setting off this income assessed on the basis of seized assets against the estimated commission income of Rs. 9,49,10,815/-. 3. The appellant craves for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9,94,54,170/- out of total addition of Rs. 632,73,87,632/- on account of unexplained credits and entries without examining and adjudicating upon on merits of the cases. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts as well in allowing relief to the assessee amounting to Rs. 5,99,94,54,170/- without appreciating the fact that the assessee has failed to discharge his onus of explaining the cash credits found recorded in his books / banks accounts. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts as well in deleting the addition of Rs. 25,95,11,221/- out of total addition of Rs. 29,11,56,727/- unexplained deposits in bank entries and cash found without examining and adjudicating upon merits of the cases. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts as well in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,42,91,715/- out of total addition of Rs. 9,49,10,815/- on account of commission income @1.5% without examining and adjudicating upon on merits of the cases. 5. a) The order of the CIT(A) is erroneous and not tenable in law and on facts. (b) The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any / all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal. 2. The b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me through various group entities of Shri Himanshu Verma were found and seized from this premise, as discussed in subsequent para, iv) Laptop of Shri verma found from this premise also contained Id and other details of various dummy directors/partners/proprietors. v) Details of bank accounts maintained by various entities of Shri verma were found mentioned in a diary, as discussed in subsequent para, vi) Himanshu Verma himself used to sign for the benami/dummy directors/partners/proprietors on cheques etc. 2.2 Thereafter, the AO has referred to the details of seized documents and also the seizure of a sum of Rs. 28,59,79,727/- and also cash found of a sum of Rs. 51,77,000/- and in this manner the AO determined the total of accommodation entries provided by the assessee in these three financial years as follow;- Financial Year 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Rs. 68.17 crore Rs. 213 crore Rs. 632.47 crore 2.3 The AO further noticed that there were cash deposits in the bank accounts aggregating to Rs. 235,96,03,074/-. The financial year wise bifurcation is as under:- Financial Year 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Rs. 83,71,29,511 Rs. 85,38,93,689 Rs. 66, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 5,06,19,100/- as against Rs. 9,49,10,815/-. It is germane to mention here that Ld. CIT(A) while deciding the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2010-11, has taken in to consideration the submission of the assessee regarding non-providing sufficient opportunity by the AO and this issue has been decided by Ld. CIT(A) has per observation in para 7 as follow:- "7. I have gone through the assessment order carefully and also the written submissions and case laws relied upon by the appellant and considered them. I have also called for the assessment record and perused it wherever necessary. On perusal of the assessment order it is seen that there was sufficient correspondence pertaining to the queries raised by the Assessing Officer and replies furnished by the appellant. However, I find that in the entire assessment order the Assessing Officer relied on the material found and seized and also on the statements of the appellant and statements of the dummy directors and proprietors and made out a case that the appellant is an accommodation entry operator. This fact has also been admitted by the appellant himself that he provided accommodation entries to various beneficiarie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ght on record by the Assessing Officer indicating that the deposits made in the intermediary companies, managed and controlled by the appellant and which were provided to the beneficiaries actually belonged to the appellant only for treating the same as income of the appellant. The appellant was cooperative and provided all the information pertaining to his business operation, paper entities, details of the beneficiaries, commission received etc. However, having accepted that the appellant is an entry operator, the Assessing Officer was unreasonable and unjustified to make an addition of Rs. 84,73,56,032/- as income of the appellant. Therefore, there is merit in the ground raised by the appellant for not providing sufficient opportunity to explain his version to impeach or negate the opinion/view harnessed by the Assessing Officer." 2.5 While deleting the addition in respect of accommodation entries the observation of CIT(A) after considering the submission of the assessee are reproduced as under:- "10. I have gone through the assessment order carefully, written submissions of the appellant and citations of the case laws relied upon by the Assessing Officer in support of the add ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entries. e) In the assessment order the Assessing Officer also elaborated in detail the management and control exercised by the appellant and his partner in the name of directors, partners, and sole proprietors. In support of the same, a number of cheque books containing blank and signed and unsigned cheques of various entities, copies of bank statement of various banks, details of bank transactions related to different entities were found and seized and incorporated such information in the assessment order. f) The Assessing Officer listed the names of 15 persons who were dummy directors, partners, proprietors of various entities managed and controlled by the appellant. The statements of 15 persons was also recorded u/s 131(1A) of the I T Act. To drive home a point, the Assessing Officer also incorporated the relevant portion of the statement recorded of one of the persons mentioned here. It was accepted by all of them that documents were endorsed at the instance of the appellant for which they were paid a small amount. g) The Assessing Officer also relied on some important documents found and seized from the appellant's premises like Annexure A-27 which a 2011 diary, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of account of the appellant or the books of the entities controlled or managed by the appellant as per the observation of the Assessing Officer himself. 10.1.5 The provision relating to cash credit was provided for the first time in the I T Act, 1961 as there was no corresponding provision in the I T Act, 1922. For the purpose of better comprehension, the section may be divided into the following parts: "i) Where any sum is credited in the books of account of the appellant/assessee ii) Maintained for any previous year iii) Assessee offers no explanation about a) the source and b) the nature iv) The explanation offered by him is not in the opinion of the Assessing Officer satisfactory v) The sum so credited may be charged to income tax vi) As the income of the assessee of that year, in relation to which is so found to have credited." The catch words in this section are "Any sum found credited" and "in the books of accounts of the assessee". In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer stated that the appellant did not produce the cash book to explain the source and availability of cash deposited on various dates in the bank. The Assessing Officer als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... planation with respect to the cash credit is rejected as being unsatisfactory and also where the appellant does not render any explanation. The Assessing Officer while accepting the fact that the appellant is an entry operator in the assessment order, suddenly made a u-turn towards the end of the assessment order without citing any reason, or without giving any opportunity or quoting a specific provision of law rejected the claim of the appellant that cash was received from the beneficiary companies in lieu of loan/capital gain money on the ground that he did not disclose the name, addresses, PAN of the alleged beneficiaries. It may not be out of place to mention that in the assessment order itself, the Assessing Officer based on the perusal of seized material, details provided and bank statements, tabulated a detailed account of entire operation giving the names of complete intermediaries utilized by him for providing accommodation entries, list of the beneficiaries to whom he provided such entries, names of these beneficiaries who surrendered the entry amount sought from the appellant, names of the entities of the appellant's group from beneficiaries sought entries along with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies against the cheques received from the appellant further strengthens the case of the appellant as an entry provider and cash deposited in the bank accounts of different entities (which the Assessing Officer tabulated on page 64 of the assessment order amounting to Rs. 235,96,03,074) for different years for issuing cheques do not belong to him, but moneys of the beneficiaries to whom cheques were issued (list of beneficiaries tabulated by the Assessing Officer on pages 107-- 20 of the order who received cheques from the appellant's group entities). Therefore, taxation of this sum amounting to Rs. 83,71,29,511/- should be made in the hands of the beneficiaries, as it occurred in the case of disclosure made by seven beneficiary companies which was correct and consistent with the facts and circumstances of the case. The effort of the Assessing Officer to tax this sum of Rs. 83,71,29,511/- in the hands of the appellant is not only detrimental but against the interest of the revenue as the beneficiaries may try to take the benefit of this contradictory approach of the Assessing Officer. If the contradiction is estimated, there is possibility in succeeding to bring to tax the benef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... providers the income to be assessed would be only the premium/brokerage/commission received by them and not the cash deposits in their hands Reference is also made to the case of Sh. Abhay Chand Bardia and Sh. SK Jain settled by the Hon'ble income Tax Settlement Commission, Principal Bench, New Delhi where also only the brokerage income was assessed and not the cash deposit appearing in their handsinterestingly, both the appellant and the Assessing Officer referred to the case of Sh. S. K. Gupta. Even though the facts of the appellant's case are identical to that of the facts of the case relied upon by the Assessing Officer, yet he rejected the appellant's submissions. 10.1.13 The cases referred by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order has no relevance here as the facts of the present case do not fit into the provisions laid down in section 68 of the I T Act, 1961. 10.1.14 In view of the aforesaid detailed discussion, I do not agree with the decision of the Assessing Officer regarding taxing the total turnover of entries amounting to Rs. 83,71,29,511/- as unexplained cash credit after accepting the appellant to be the entry operator. Since the beneficiaries ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has to be based on some concrete material in hand or on the basis of any comparable case having identical facts. 13.1.3 The AR of the appellant also relied on the ratio of the following judicial decisions where commission income was determined on similar facts of the case: a) Manoj Aggarwal (2008) 113 ITD 377 (Del) b) Sh. S. K. Gupta u/s 245D(4) of the I T Act, 1961 by the Hon'ble Settlement Commission. c) Sanjay Kumar Garg Vs ACIT (2011) 12 Taxman.com 294 (Delhi) d) Sanjay Rastogi Vs ACIT ITA No. 164 to 168/De1/2010. In all the above cases only commission income net of expenses have been assessed. The AR of the appellant also tabulated the estimated rate of commission on the basis of the above judicial decisions as under:- Authority deciding the matter Name of the assessee Rate of Commission Special Bench of ITAT, New Delhi. Sh. Manoj Aggarwal 0.35 % Income Tax Settlement Commission, Principle Bench, New Delhi Sh. S.K. Gupta 0.80 % ITAT, New Delhi Sh. Sanjay Kumar Garg 0.20% ITAT, New Delhi Sh Sanjay Rastogi 0.50% 13.1.4 On perusal of this issue, I find that there was no evidence in the seized material to assess the income of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ardapuri, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi 51,77,000/- 50,00,000/- Nil Nil 2. 132 Bank A/c no. 911020011758447, of M/s Veritable Township Pvt. Ltd., Axis Bank Branch, Ashok Vihar, New Delhi 65,987/- 65,987/- Nil Nil 3. 132 Bank A/c no.911020012187169 of M/s Omex pro Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Axis Bank Branch, Ashok Vihar, New Delhi 5,22,380/- 5,22,380/- Nil Nil 4. 132 Bank A/c no.911020013042788, of M/s SNG Securities Pvt. Ltd. Axis Bank Branch, Ashok Vihar, New Delhi 1,49,52,528/- 1,49,52,528/- Nil Nil 5. 132 Bank A/c no. 911020003420334, of M/s Cornelius Marketing and Research Pvt. Ltd, Axis Bank Branch, Ashok Vihar, New Delhi 7,38,374/- 7,38,374/- Nil Nil 6. 132 Bank A/c no.910020038244933, of M/s Moo Ambey Clothing Co. Pvt. Ltd. Axis Bank Branch, Ashok Vihar, New Delhi 1,00,25,504/- 1,00,25,504/- Nil Nil 7. 132 Bank A/c no.91002003853562 4, of M/s Soff pro Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Axis Bank Branch, Ashok Vihar, New Delhi 81,616/- 81,616/- Nil Nil 8. 132 Bank A/c no. 910020044140742, of M/s SMR Estate Pvt. Ltd. Axis Bank Branch, Ashok Vihar, New Delhi 49,79,952/- 49,79,952/- Nil Nil 9. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... New Delhi 1,10,000/- 1,10,000/- Nil Nil 24. 132 Bank A/c no. 912020004013914, of M/s S V Enterprises Axis Bank Branch, Ashok Vihar, New Delhi 9,48,000/- 9,48,000/- Nil Nil 25. 132 Bank A/c no. 912020004427481, of M/s Pushkar Enterprises Axis Bank Branch, Ashok Vihar, New Delhi 35,45,000/- 35,45,000/- Nil Nil 26. 132 Bank A/c no. 912020004677615, of M/s A V Trading Co., Axis Bank Branch, Ashok Vihar, New Delhi 93,49,000/- 93,49,000/- Nil Nil 27. 132 Bank A/c no. 909020045782521, of M/s Green vision Construction Pvt. Ltd. Axis Bank Branch, Ashok Vihar, New Delhi 1,00,07,000/- 1,00,07,000/- Nil Nil 28. 132 Bank A/c no. 910020029852596, of M/s Gulmohar Fabrics Axis Bank Branch, Ashok Vihar, New Delhi 3,01,000/- 3,01,000/- Nil Nil 29. 132 Bank A/c no. 911020003787336, of M/s Citylife Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Axis Bank Branch, Ashok Vihar, New Delhi 2,31,000/- 2,31,000/- Nil Nil 30. 132 Bank A/c no. 911020014449830, of M/s Carewell Project and Development Pvt. Ltd. Axis Bank Branch, Ashok Vihar, New Delhi 40,09,000/- 40,09,000/- Nil Nil 31. 132 Bank A/c no. 911020014450241, of M/s H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accounts. It is pertinent to mention here that a large part of the seizure was made from the bank accounts of various entities and according to the Assessing Officer no cash deposit was found in these accounts. From the seizure made, it is evident that the deposits in his accounts did not originate from the cash deposits. 13.1.2 In the course of the appeal proceedings, the AR of the appellant contended that a large volume of transactions was on account of rotation/turnover etc. It was also stated that in several of these cases, the money belonged to the external parties who got trapped in the action conducted by the department on these bank accounts. To demonstrate the same, the appellant illustrated the transactions of M/s Commercial Engineers & body builders Co. Ltd. (CEEBCO) where an amount of Rs. 10 crores was received from the above concern to be returned back after undertaking certain circular transactions but could not be so returned on account of seizure of the same by the Department. To substantiate the same, the appellant placed on record a correspondence between the said concern and the Assessing Officer regarding the claim of the amount above mentioned by companies. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refore, in my opinion in view of the above discussion they said seizure amounting to Rs. 28,59,62,065/- (Rs.29,09,62,065 - Rs. 50,00,000/-) cannot be assessed as income of the appellant on account of unexplained cash deposits but turnover/entries. 13.1.4 However, in the course of the appeal proceedings, in response to a query raised the AR of the appellant admitted that in the following cases the audited accounts were not produced before the Assessing Officer. S. NO. Name Amount 1 Silko Fabrics Rs. 81,506.93/- 2 Gulmohar Fabrics Rs.301,000/- 3 A V Trading Co. Rs. 9,349,000.00/- 4 Pushkar Enterprises Rs.3,545,000.00/- 5 New Style Fabrics Rs. 1,532,000.00/- 6 Saraswati Fabrics Rs.1,528,000.00/- 7 S V Enterprises Rs.948,000.00/- 8 Jai Vaishno Real Estate Rs.1,525,000.00/- 9 Star City Enterprises Rs.1,531,000.00/- 10 Wonder Enterprises Rs.1,530,000.00/- 11 Life Time Trading Co. Rs.1,531,000.00/- 12 Girdhari Industries Rs.1,536,000.00/- 13 Lotus Trading Co. Rs.1,531,000.00/- 14 Total Rs.2,64,68,506/- From the above, it is evident that the sum of Rs. 29,11,56,727/- (actual seizure made of Rs. 29 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amination of 15 of such dummy directors/partners/proprietors which were recorded u/s 143(1)A. referring to all these material she submitted that it has been brought on record that assessee had acted as entry provider. She therefore, submitted that the AO was correct in taking the gross amount of entries provided by the assessee as the income of the assessee. She also submitted that there was evidence on record, according to which the assessee has earned the commission from 1% to 1.50%. Therefore, she contended that the AO was right in assessing the commission at the rate of 1.5%. She submitted that CIT(A) has committed a wrong in reducing the quantum of commission from 1.50% to 0.80%. She submitted that the issue of commission is subject matter of appeal in respect of all the 3 years impugned in the present appeal. Apart from these 2 issue one more issue is involved in A.Y. 2012-13 that on the basis of impounded documents the AO has added a sum of Rs. 29,11,56,727/- as unexplained deposits in bank accounts and cash found during the search. In this regard she pointed out to the observation of AO from pages 54 to 63 wherein the AO has added s sum of Rs. 28,59,79,727/- on account of s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from shares totaling to Rs. 1.20,64,400/- were credited in the premium account from 01-04-2007 to 26-10-2007 instead of debiting the same in the premium account. Therefore, we accept applicant's claim that at the time of working out gross figure of premium/commission, this amount is to be reduced, however, the applicant will not get deduction of Rs. 1,20,64,400/- at the time of computation of income as he has not substantiated that loss with necessary details. The applicant's contention that premium account included dividend of Rs. 1,14,746/- and this amount is also required to be reduced as the dividend income is exempt is considered and accepted. The applicant's claim of deduction of expenditure is Rs. 90,60,767/- from the premium account on account of expenses of ROC, Officer Expenses, mediator expenses, etc., is examined. It is seen from the ledger accounts that the nature of the expenses claimed under the head Officer Expenses of Rs. 35.81 lakhs and mediator expenses fof Rs. 47.86 lakhs cannot be verified. In both the head a lump sum amount is debited with the description of EXP and SKG. The amount debited in these account sometimes was an high as Rs. 3,00,000 or Rs. 5,00,000. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT (A) that only commission can be determined on the deposits made in the bank accounts of the dummy concerns. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the ld. CIT (A) that the amount deposited in the account of dummy concerns cannot be treated as income of the assessee. Therefore, the ld. CIT (A), in our considered opinion, is justified in treating the cash 38 I.T.A. Nos. 1501, 1502 & 3531 to 3534 (Del) of 2009 AND I.T.A. Nos. 1797, 1798 & 3707 to 3710 (Del) of 2009 deposited in various bank accounts controlled and operated by the assessee as the turnover of the accommodation entry business and commission income has to be estimated thereon. 4.2 Ld. Counsel for the assessee also referred to the decision of ITAT in the case of Sanjay Rastogi Vs ACIT in ITA No. 164 to 168/Del/2010, copy of this order is placed as Annexure-8 from pages 296 to 300, relevant observation in para 2 are reproduced below:- "2. The brief facts of the case are as under. The assessee is a Chartered Accountant. A survey operation u/s 133A(1) was carried out at the premises of the assessee where incriminating documents were found showing that assessee was engaged in giving bogus/acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... through mediators from the persons who wanted to avail the accommodation entries, such cash was deposited in the bank account of the conduit companies and thereafter, cheque of the similar amount was being issued to the beneficiaries (i.e. the person who wanted to avail the accommodation entry) within a day or so. The Assessing Officer himself in the assessment order has accepted these facts. Considering the totality of these facts and the logical consequences of the order of the Settlement Commission as well as of Additional CIT under Section 144A, we have no hesitation to ITA- 3477/D/2013 & 8 others 19 hold that the addition under Section 68 cannot be made in the case of the conduit companies. Therefore, we delete the addition made under Section 68 in the case of all the nine companies, which are admittedly conduit companies of Shri S.K. Gupta. 18. In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 28th January, 2015" 4.4 Ld. Counsel for the assessee also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs Vijay Conductors India Pvt. Ltd in ITA 683/2015decision dated 29-09-20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arch statement of the assessee which is recorded on 14-04-2012 wherein the assessee in answering to question No. 9 has stated that he was receiving cheques and RTGS from the company in the shape of loans etc. which were deposited in different companies account which were maintained by him. He also stated that the cash was also being received which was deposited in the bank account of firms, proprietary concerns managed and controlled by him. Similarly, he has also stated that he was receiving cheques and RTGS from companies against the sale, which were being deposited in different bank accounts of the firms and companies managed and controlled by him. Further, the AO has also referred to the statement of the assessee recorded on 29-03-2012, wherein in response to question No. 10, it was stated by the assessee that whenever any company/concern wishes to take accommodation entries from him through various CAs operating in this field, the cash was received from them to give the entries through cheques from any of the entities controlled by him on which commission is received in the range of 0.75% to 1.75%. In answer to question No. 12, it was also stated that he was receiving such com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see did not provide him with the trail of events leading to the beneficiaries as the AO was in possession of entire information including tally accounts, bank statements, names of entities used as intermediaries, names of the beneficiaries etc. from which the AO himself has culled out every specific and precise information and incorporated the scanned copies in the assessment order. Ld. CIT(A) has also found that the case law relied upon by assessee in the cases of Sanjay Kumar Garg Vs. ACIT (2011) 12 taxmann.com 294 (Del) and S.K. Gupta order U/S 245D(4) of the Act, Manoj Aggarwal Vs DCIT (2008) 113 ITD 377 (Del)(SB) and M/s Goldstar Finvest (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO ITA No. 4625/Mum/2005 Vs ITO supports the case of the assessee that in the case of entry provider the income to be assessed would be only the premium/ brokerage/ commission received by him and not the cash deposited in their hands. We have also gone through these decisions relied upon by Ld. CIT(A) in his impugned order, wherein it was held that in the case of assessee who is the entry provider, addition could not be made in respect of entries but only of commission. In addition to the decision relied upon before CIT(A) Ld. AR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 68 of the Act in their hands does not suffer from any legal infirmity. 5.1 In the background of the aforesaid discussions and respectfully following the precedents, as aforesaid, we are of the considered view that Ld. CIT(A) did not commit any error in holding that Assessing Officer was not right in taxing the total turnover of the entries as an unexplained cash credit in the hands of the assessee, who is an entry provider and since the beneficiaries are identified, the entire amount should be brought to tax in the respective hands of the beneficiaries. Hence, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is a well reasoned order and, therefore, we affirm the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) on the deletion of addition of Rs. 83,71,29,511/-, Rs. 195,01,14,122/- and Rs. 599,94,54,170/- in respect of Assessment years 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012- 13 respectively and accordingly the grounds pertaining to this addition in all these assessment years in all the 03 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed. 6. As regards other issue relating to rate of commission in the hands of the assessee which has been held to be an entry operator. We find that the AO has estimated such commission 1.5% of the entries ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her which can been seen in para 12 and these submission are also reproduced in the above part of this order. Ld. CIT(A) has rendered the decision in para 13. She has noted the fact that the subject matter of balance in the bank account was on account of pay-orders, the details of which have been given in the table described in para 13 of the impugned order. The assessee also furnished the copy of returns filed by such concerns along with balance sheets etc., which are part of the replies submitted by the assessee before Ld. CIT(A) and documents in this regard are filed at pages 50 to 130. The basis of relief granted by the Ld. CIT(A) is that the assessee has been able to produce not only the copy of acknowledgment of return filed by those concern but also the audited balance sheet of these concern. It was also noticed by Ld. CIT(A) that the deposit in those accounts also belong to external parties and the balance were also claimed by them for example the reference is made to the Ceebco, Ujjwal Micro finance Pvt. Ltd., M/s Ujjwal Rral Services Ltd. and M/s Dhanpur Engineering Ltd. from where it was noticed that several crores of Rupees were circular transaction and these were not c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
