TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1637X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a common point between the parties that the appellant company before us is also a part of the entities controlled by Mr. Mukesh Choksi, in our view, the aforesaid decisions are relevant to assess the income of the assessee. In this view of the matter, we, therefore, set-aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to recompute the commission income from the business of providing accommodation entry in conformity with the aforesaid precedents. We set-aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer to redetermine the total income as per aforesaid directions. Needless to mention, the Assessing Officer shall allow the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard before recompu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssing officer without providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the appellant. 3. The learned. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and in facts in passing the order without providing opportunity of hearing to the appellant. 4. The learned. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and in facts in not appreciating the fact that no evidence of the valid satisfaction has been brought on record before the issue of notice u/s 153C of the Act. 5. The learned. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and in facts by applying 2% rate of income instead of 0.15% without appreciating the fact that no evidence corroborating the rate of 2% has been found during after the course of searc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fter the detailed search carried out by the Income Tax department. 12. The learned. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the act of Assessing Officer of the disallowance of business expenses against the income estimated. 13. The learned. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the act of Assessing Officer of levying interest s. 234B and 234C of the Act . 4. At the time of hearing, it was stated by the Ld. Representative for the assessee that the issues raised in the captioned appeals have already been decided by the Tribunal in the cases of the sister concerns of assessee company and in this context, reference has been made to the following ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earning commission ranging from 1.5% to 3.5% and accordingly he estimated the net commission income @2%. Accordingly, based on the total receipts reflected in the bank account, the Assessing Officer estimated the commission income @2% at ₹ 2,20,267/-. This action of the Assessing Officer has since been upheld by the CIT(A). 6. Before us, the Ld. Representative for the assessee submitted that similar additions were made by the Assessing Officer in the cases of other group concerns also, which were covered by the search action carried out by the Department on 25/11/2009. It is pointed out that in the aforesaid decisions, the Tribunal has accepted the stand of the assessee that commission income was liable to be assessed @0.15% of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal had directed that the income by way of commission from the business of accommodation entries being carried out by Mukesh Choksi group was liable to be assessed at 0.15% instead of 2% applied by the Assessing Officer. In this context, we reproduce hereinafter paras 5 6 of the order of the Tribunal in the case of Goldstar Finvest Pvt. Ltd.(supra), wherein earlier precedents have been relied upon and the issue decided accordingly:- 5. We have gone through the orders of lower authorities and the 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 for the assessment year 2002-03 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on turnover at 0.15% which is more than the percentage considered to be reasonable by the Tribunal in the case of Palresha Co and Kiran Co (supra), the same should be accepted. We, accordingly, accept the commission declared by the assessee and set aside the order of the CIT (A) in this regard. 6. It is further noticed by us that this stand has been constantly accepted by the Tribunal in various orders, details of which have been given by the ld. Counsel, as mentioned above. We have gone through the orders as enclosed in the paper book filed by the assessee and find that the ld. AR has correctly stated that this issue has been unanimously accepted by the Tribunal in various cases including the case of assessee. Nothing has been b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
