TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1717X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt year 2005 06, 2006 07, 2007 08, 2008 09, 2009 10, 2010 11, 2005 06, 2006 07 and 2007 08, in the matter of orders passed under section 153C r/w section 143(3) and under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act ). 2. The common grievance of the assessee in all the years under consideration pertains to application of net profit rate of 2% on the income on entire bank deposit managed by the agents as against profit rate of 0.03% offered by the assessee. 3. Brief facts are, a search and seizure action under section 132(1) of the Act, was conducted in the case of M/s. Mahasagar Securities Pvt. Ltd. (now known as M/s. Alag Securities Pvt. Ltd.), M/s. Mihir Agencies Pvt. Ltd., M/.s Alliance Intermediaries Network Pvt. Ltd. and its other group companies along with the residential premises of Shri Mukesh Maneklal Choksi, Shri Jayesh Krishnaraj Sampat and Shri Sitaram Mahabeleshwar Bhat, the Directors and auditor of the Mahasagar Group of companies on 25th November 2009. The assessee s case was also covered under section 153C of the Act. It is stated in the assessment orders that it was found diring the course of search and seizure action that the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the Tribunal referred to by the assessee in support of the proposition that the commission rate should be determined at 0.15%. We have also gone through the order of the learned CIT(A) wherein, the learned CIT(A), vide his order dated 31st August 2012, observed as under: 15.3 The main contention of the appellant is that the gross income from the total receipts of providing accommodation entries has to be determined at 0.15%, as held in its own group of cases, by the Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai Bench. Further, appellant has also cited the appellate order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-37, Mumbai in respect of the search assessments completed u/s. 153C of the Act for the A.Yrs.2002-03 to 2007-08 consequent to the search seizure action carried out on 28.06.2006. The factual matrix, the issues examined and the ratio of the decisions applied by the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal are carefully considered. In the orders passed by the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench in similar cases as well as in appellant's own group of cases, there were no materials found and seized during the search seizure proceedings which clearly indicated the nature of transactions and the quan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orders has taken into account the alleged expenses. Therefore, there is no justification for allowing further expenses against the net income determined @ 2% of the total receipts. Accordingly, the income assessed are hereby confirmed. 8. We have considered rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below. We had also gone through the order of the Tribunal as referred by the assessee and stated by us in para 5, wherein under similar facts and circumstances, the Tribunal have held that 0.15% net profit will be reasonable. The search in this case was on the very same day when the search in these other group concerns were carried out, wherein matter travelled up to the Tribunal and Tribunal have unanimously taken a view that 0.15% net profit on the bank deposit will be reasonable. Learned DR could not bring on record any distinguished facts. 9. The precise observation of Tribunal in the case of Goldstar Finvest Private Limited dated 01/06/2016 in ITA No.6114-6120/M/2012 was as under:- 4. In all these cases of the Group concerns of Sri Mukesh Chowksi including assessee, the assessments have been made in the wake of search and seizure action u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the assessee are allowed. 8. As regards the disallowance of business expenses the Ld. CIT(A) has directed the AO not to allow any expenses against the net income of 2% determined. We find that the Tribunal in the case of Gold Star Finvest Ltd have disallowed only 50% of the business expenses. Accordingly, following the judicial precedence, which is applicable mutatis mutandis in the case of the assessee also, we direct the AO to allow the business expenses to the extent of 50%. Accordingly, ground no.8 is treated as partly allowed. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed In assessee s own case also, this issue has been decided in the following manner:- 4. On the other hand, the ld. DR relied upon the order of AO. Nothing has been brought on record by him to distinguish the orders relied upon by the ld. Counsel. 5. We have gone through the orders of lower authorities and tile orders of the co-ordinate bench of Tribunal in assessee's own case and other orders relied upon by the assessee. It is noted by us that identical issue had came up before the Tribunal in assessee's own. case [or the assessment year 2002-03. The relevant o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 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 Id. CIT(A), therefore, the same is upheld. Grounds No.1 and 2 taken by the Revenue stand dismissed . Thus, following the judicial precedence In cases of various Groups concerns as well as that of assessee decided by the Tribunal, we hold that net profit rate /commission should be taken at 0.15% and the expenditure claimed should be allowed to the extent of 59% from such income. Accordingly, these two issues are decided in favour of the assessee. As regards the other grounds taken, the same have not been argued before us on the ground that they will become purely academic. . Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is treated as stated in the operating part of the order that similar issues are involved in all the appeals, therefore, this finding will apply mutatis mutandis in all the impugned years. Thus, all the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed. 4. In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed. 10. Respectfully following the consistent view taken by the Tribunal, we direct the AO to a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
