DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 01, DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. AMAN, ROHTAK

PER SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. The appeal in ITA Nos. 6820 & 6993/Del/2025 for AYs 2022-23 to 2023- 24, arises out of the order of the ld National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)’, in short] dated 29.07.2025 against the order of assessment passed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 31.05.2024 by the Assessing Officer, DCIT, Central Circle(1), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’).

ITA 6820 & 6993/DEL/2025 AMAN

Identical issues are involved in all these appeals and hence they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. The only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the 2. ld CIT(A) was justified in adopting the commission rate @0.5% on accommodation entries provided as against 1% adopted by the ld AO in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available 3. on record. With the consent of both the parties, the facts pertaining to AY 2022-23 is taken up as the lead case and the decision rendered therein shall apply mutatis mutandis for AY 2023-24 also except with variance in figures. The assessee filed his return of income for AY 2022-23 declaring income 4. from business of Rs. 26,12,540/-. The assessee is a proprietor of Baba Metals Company engaged in supply of materials to M/s Bindal Smelting Pvt. Ltd and M/s. Pilot Industries Ltd. A search and seizure action u/s 132 and survey u/s 133A of the Act was carried out in the case of Pilot Industries ltd and others on 30.05.2023 and residence of assessee was also covered in search action on 30.05.2023. It is not in dispute that assessee was engaged in providing certain accommodation entries and ld AO completed the assessment for AY 2022-23 by estimating 1% commission income on the accommodation entries provided by the assessee. The ld CIT(A) reduced this commission rate to 0.5% in the first appellate proceedings. Against this order of the ld CIT(A), only the revenue is in appeal before us. We find that the estimation of 0.5% made by the ld CIT(A) is in consonance with the market rate and general accepted practice. Adoption of 0.5% by the ld CIT(A) is in order. The ld AR merely placed reliance on the coordinate bench decision of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Rejender P. Jain Vs. DCIT in ITA No. 297 to 298/Mum/2018 dated 03.05.2019 just to seek reduction of commission percentage and in the case of ITO Vs. Saraswati Trade Centre Pvt. Ltd in ITA No. 4077 & 4074/Mum/2023

ITA 6820 & 6993/DEL/2025 AMAN

dated 29.07.2024, we find that the ld CIT(A) in the instant appeal placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court and had resorted to estimation of commission income @0.5% on the value of accommodation entries. Hence, we do not deem it fit and appropriate to interfere in the order of the ld CIT(A). Accordingly, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed.

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed. 5.

Order pronounced in the open court on 18-Sep-2026.

-Sd/- -Sd/- SUDHIR KUMAR M BALAGANESH JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Delhi Dated: 18/09/2026 AK Keot Copy to: DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NEW DELHI, E-2, ARA CENTRE,JHANDAWALAN EXTN., 1 NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI-110055, DELHI AMAN, M/S BABA METAL, PROP. AMAN, SUNARIA 2 BALANDROAD V&PO BALAND, ROHTAK 124001,, ROHTAK-124001, HARYANA 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, DELHI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE TRUE COPY

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY I.T.A.T., DELHI