SHRILEKHA TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI

The Ld.DR argued that the Ld.CIT(A) had made a gross mistake without considering the fact duly taken during the search proceedings by the department. The Ld. DR stands in favour of the impugned assessment order and invited our attention in relevant paragraphs of impugned assessment order on pages 2 & 3, which are reproduced below:- “6. During the course of Search and Seizure action u/s. 132 of the I. T. Act 1961, the books accounts of the assessee company in tally software has been seized. The detail analysis of the seized material is discussed in this order. The assessee company has been found to be not conducting any business activity. There was no iota of evidence to indicate transactions that involved actual movement of material. All the documents merely pointed out to invoices backed by no material & 3049/Mum/2025 & ITAs No.2744 to 2750/Mum/2025 Shrilekha Trading Private Limited movement. Specifically, the director of the company with whom assessee has been trading admitted to being dummy and acting on instructions.

The Ld.AR argued, filed a paper book containing pages 1 to 149, which is kept in record. The Ld.AR stated that the assessee is wrongly searched related to the search action taken in the case of “Jatia group” is bad in law. He stated that the assessee during the assessment and appeal proceedings submitted all relevant documents in relation to transaction with “Top Worth Credit Company” and “Asuti Trading Pvt Ltd”, one of the searched persons with the assessee. In ‘Panchanama’, name of the companies is duly mentioned which is annexed in Exhibit “A” of the APB. He further stated that the Ld.AO has alleged that the receipt of excess consideration to the extent of 7% on turnover. He further stated that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition exceeds beyond any strategic imagination. The & 3049/Mum/2025 & ITAs No.2744 to 2750/Mum/2025 Shrilekha Trading Private Limited appellant has actually been maintaining average gross profit ratio at 0.94% over a period of 7 years which is highest gross profit ratio when compared with prevailing industry practice, wherein the profit margin earned in case of genuine wholesale trading in between is only 0.10% and 2.63%. He further invited our attention in impugned appellate order pages 115-116, which is reproduced as below :- “9.10 While the appellant has got the funds from the bank through the letter of credit facility, the three group concerns (Llyods, Topworth & Uttam) also were equally benefitted with the funds. These funds were either reinvested into their businesses of transferred within their group entities or to the outside group entities. They got to use the funds up to 180 days at a stretch before returning the same to the appellant. As far as appellant is concerned, its role was to facilitate the transfer of funds from the bank through the letter of credit facility and receive the funds at the end of the credit period. Both the legs of the transactions and resultant income have been accounted for. Thus, the funds were at the disposal of the three group concerns for a longer time than the appellant. Further, there is no specific finding of appellant diverting the funds for its own use. In view of this, I do not concur with the AO that the additional income earned by the appellant should be estimated at a higher rate than the rate adopted for group concerns. Considering the discussion above, I feel that the rate of 0.5% adopted in the case of Mis Duli Trade Commodities Pvt ltd is reasonable and realistic and can be applied in the case of the appellant. The reduction of rate from 7% to 0.5% would also address the claim of the appellant that not all transactions were with the entities of Topworth/Llyod/Uttam group, thereby implying that not all transactions were circular in nature. Considering the overall discussion as made above, the additional income is calculated at the rate of 0.5% of the total sales. This additional income shall primarily include the commission income earned from the group concerns and also cover any other unaccounted incomes like bill discounting income, interest received, discount income on account of suppression of GP etc. 9.11. For the year under consideration, the AO has estimated the income at the rate of 7% of total sales of Rs 5,06,41,61,572/-. As discussed in the paras above, the additional income is estimated at 0.5% of the sales of Rs 5,06,41,61,572/-which comes to Rs 2,53,20,807/-. It is clarified that the & 3049/Mum/2025 & ITAs No.2744 to 2750/Mum/2025 Shrilekha Trading Private Limited said addition of Rs 2,53,20,807/- shall be over and above the income already disclosed by the appellant. The appellant gets relief of Rs 25,73,41,053/-.”

The Ld.AR further stated that the assessee company has made the transactions with the companies, who are also party to search action and names are mentioned in the “Panchanama”, i.e. Supreme Holding & Hospitality India Ltd, M/s AP Trading Co. Ltd and M/s Asuti Trading Co. Pvt Ltd. Related to these transactions in case of Supreme Holding & Hospitality India Ltd and M/s AP Trading Co. Ltd were duly migrated before the Mumbai Bench of the ITAT and the ITAT has verified the facts of the case found that there is no wrong in these transactions related to these companies in their business. He respectfully relied on the order of co-ordinate bench of ITAT in the case of DCIT, Central Circle-7(1), Mumbai vs Supreme Holdings & Hospitality (India) Limited & CO No.68/Mum/2024, A.Y. 2017-18, date of pronouncement 07/01/2025. The relevant paragraphs of the said order is extracted below:- “12. From the perusal of the records, we find that identity of all the four companies are not in doubt, because Asuti Trading Pvt.Ltd is one of the company forming part of Topworth Group of companies which is a very big group having turnover of several 100 Crores and are assessed to tax under the same Assessing Officer as that of the assessee. Similarly, Duli Trading & Commodities Pvt. Ltd. was forming part of Uttam Value Group, regularly assessed to tax and for these years has been assessed Supreme Holdings & Hospitality (India) Ltd with the same Assessing Officer and they have disclosed the transaction in their financials. In the case of Elecmec Engineering Projects Pvt. Ltd., which is farming part of the Lloyds group, is also a big group and was carrying out huge volume of business which is evident from the profit and loss account Lloyds Steel Industry Ltd., which was also part of Lloyds group was also regularly assessed to the tax with the same Assessing Officer and were having substantial business. Thus, identity cannot be doubted.

To prove the genuineness, assessee had filed a copy of their bank statements wherein the amounts have been transferred through clearing and it is not the case that some unknown clearing has come from where they have given loan to the assessee. It appears that they had huge funds available in the form of credit balance and there has been regular transaction of business from where these parties had given loans to the assessee. Another important fact is that these loans were repaid either in the same assessment year or in the subsequent assessment year and the closing balance was nil. The loan has been repaid back through banking channels in a short span. This fact has already been noted by the Id. CIT (A) in the foregoing paragraphs. Thus genuineness of the transaction also cannot be doubted.

One very important fact which has been noted by the Id. CIT (A) is that in the case of all these four entities, same Assessing Officer has passed regular assessment order u/s.143(3)/153A where this entire issue has been examined in detail and no adverse inference has been drawn by the same Assessing Officer in case of those entities with regard to the source of funds and loan given to the assessee. If Id. AO had any doubt about the source of funds then, he should have examined in the case of these parties. This fact as noted by the Id. CIT(A) as incorporated above has not been rebutted by the department before us. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Id. CIT (A) and the same is confirmed.

The entire allegation of the Id. AO seems to be based on finding that these entities were doing some circular trading and they had defrauded the bank by adopting modus operandi of rotation of funds from one entity to another and misusing the LC facility from these banks. Despite making such allegation in the respective assessment orders of these entities, he has applied the profit rate on the sales declared by these & 3049/Mum/2025 & ITAs No.2744 to 2750/Mum/2025 Shrilekha Trading Private Limited entities to assess their income. Nowhere in their cases any deemed income has been assessed or any finding have been given that they are bogus entities not doing business. Once Id. AO has accepted source of these loans in the case of these parties, then how can he made the addition u/s.68 in the hands of the assessee.

Further, nowhere in the various statements as referred by the Id. AO, there is any whisper about the assessee or any question was asked by the searched parties or the authorised officers that any such person or entity have given any kind of accommodation entry to the assessee or the loan given by these parties were bogus. The entire allegation of the AO based on the statement recorded and finding of the search parties is that these groups were doing either bogus sales or purchases or circular trading to get LC from the bank. There might be movement of funds from one company to other and overdrawing the money from the banks through Letter of Credit without any credentials at the time of Bill Discounting or for any other purpose, but nowhere there is any finding of investigation wing or any material found or statement during the search, that some unaccounted money has been given by the assessee company to accommodate any loan entry or there is any cash trail. Neither there is involvement of any kind of entry operator nor were these companies found to providing accommodation entry of loan by taking some temporary cash. Without such information or material, there cannot be any presumption that these companies had provided bogus entry of loan or the transaction is not genuine. Thus, the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) cannot be tinkered with. Accordingly, the additions made u/s.68 is deleted and the order of the Id. CIT (A) is confirmed and the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed.”

He further relied on the order of Indrajit Properties Pvt Ltd vs DCIT 2139/Mum/2025, date of pronouncement 22/08/2025. The relevant paragraphs are extracted below:- “21. Furthermore, neither the AO nor the Ld. CIT(A) has referred to or relied upon any specific finding or tangible evidence to demonstrate that the assessee had actually received any cash. In our view, at the time of making the addition, the AO has merely proceeded on a presumptive basis by stating that the assessee might have received cash, without bringing any concrete, corroborative or even circumstantial evidence on record to substantiate such an assumption. Such reasoning of the revenue authorities is based purely on conjectures was also accepted by the Ld. CIT(A). In our considered view, such conjectural reasoning & 3049/Mum/2025 & ITAs No.2744 to 2750/Mum/2025 Shrilekha Trading Private Limited cannot form the basis for a sustainable addition under the Act. On this proposition, reliance is being placed up on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT (26 ITR 775) (PBP 144), wherein, it was held that although, the AO is not restricted by the strict and technical rules of the evidence and pleadings, he cannot proceed to make an addition purely on a guess work without any reference to material or tangible evidence.

After evaluating the entire records, we also found that the payer of the alleged amount has not been identified throughout the assessment proceedings. It is strange that the AO has alleged that the receipt of excess consideration to the extent of 5% of the turnover, which aggregates to approximately Rs. 250 crores for all the years under consideration but at the same time had not identified the person who had paid such a huge amount to the assessee. The revenue has also not made any addition in the hands of any counter party in respect of such huge amount allegedly paid to the assessee. Thus in our view, if the assessee had received the cash consideration outside the books of accounts, then in that eventuality, there has to be some entity who has paid such amount and such entity ought to have been identified and taxed by the Income-tax Department.

Even otherwise, the additions sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is excessive. As in this regard, it was submitted that as per prevailing industry practice, the profit margin earned in case of a genuine wholesale trading is between 0.17% and 0.63%. (This fact has been accepted by the Ld. CIT(A) on Pg. 86). Therefore, in our view, even assuming that the transaction entered by the assessee are circular in nature and non-genuine, then in that eventuality the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee must have earned 0.5% commission is contrary to commercial logic. No prudent businessman would pay such a high commission to a mere entry provider, especially when the commission exceeds or equals the profit margins earned in legitimate trading activity. Hence, the commission earned by the assessee has to be much lower than the industry's average net profit margin.

Even otherwise, the profit margin disclosed by the assessee on alleged circular transactions comes to 0.27% for the year under consideration (chart showing profit margin for the all the years is enclosed in the file). Therefore, in our view, considering the thin margin in this line of business, it is held that the profits disclosed by the assessee in its audited books of account includes commission income earned, therefore, in our considered opinion, no further addition is warranted on this account. Reliance is being placed on the decision of the Rajkot Bench of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Kamlesh Deoraj Jain v. ITO (PBP 154), Chandigarh Bench of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Seo Lehenga House v. DCIT (PBP 173) and Nagpur Bench of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of ACIT v. Solaries Holdings Pvt Ltd. (PBP 197), wherein it has & 3049/Mum/2025 & ITAs No.2744 to 2750/Mum/2025 Shrilekha Trading Private Limited been held that in case of a circular transaction, the profit declared in the books of accounts covers the commission portion and that no further addition is warranted especially in absence of any evidence of cash payments.

Therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case and also considering the decisions of the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal as discussed by us above, we allow the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee and direct the AO to delete the additions.”

The facts and circumstances in these appeals are identical to appeals decided above, therefore, the decision arrived at therein shall apply mutatis mutandis to these appeals also.

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed.