MANISH SUREKA,KOLKATA vs. ITO WARD 37(1), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2083/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 August 2026AY 2014-20154 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to reconsider the rate of commission based on cited precedents and recompute the income after hearing the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee accepted providing accommodation entries for commission. The Assessing Officer added 2% of the accommodation entry amounts as undisclosed commission income. The CIT(A) upheld these additions.

What were the issues?

Whether the rate of commission adopted by the Assessing Officer for undisclosed income from accommodation entries was excessive, and if so, what would be the appropriate rate.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 131,Section 148,Section 69A,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH,

Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI GOPALAN GURUSAMY

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D Shah, AR
For Respondent: Shri Ambrish Mishra, DR
Hearing: 04.08.2026Pronounced: 19.08.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GOPALAN GURUSAMY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.2083 & 2084/KOL/2026 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16

Manish Sureka Vs. ITO, Ward-37(1), Kolkata CA-14, Rail Pukur Road, Deshbandhu Nagar, Baguihati, Kolkata-700059 [PAN: ALJPS6985Q] APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Miraj D Shah, AR Respondent by : Shri Ambrish Mishra, DR Date of hearing : 04.08.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 19.08.2026 O R D E R PER GOPALAN GURUSAMY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These two Appeals are filed by the Assessee against the order of the NFAC, Delhi (‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short) dated 16.03.2026, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) for the Assessment Years 2014-15 and 2015-16. As the issues involved in both the appeals are common, the appeals are decided in this common order for the sake of convenience.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee had filed return of income for A.Y 2014-15 and 2015-16 declaring total income of Rs.2,92,600/- and Rs.4,00,250/- respectively. During post search investigation, a statement on oath u/s 131 of the Act was recorded

ITA Nos.2083 & 2084/KOL/2026 Manish Sureka; A.Y: 2014-15 & 2015-16 from the assessee on 21.05.2019, wherein he had accepted and confirmed that he was engaged in providing accommodation entries to various beneficiaries in lieu of commission through a layer of various companies/concerns managed and controlled by him. Notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2021. The assessee did not file any return of income in response to such notices. During the reassessment proceeding the Assessing Officer had issued show cause notice stating that the accommodation entries provided by the assessee during the year relevant to A.Y. 2014-15 was Rs. 2,90,00,000/- and as to why 2% of the said amount should not be considered as undisclosed commission income earned on the providing of accommodation entries. Similar notice was issued for the A.Y. 2015-16, wherein the amount of accommodation entries provided was stated to be Rs.3,05,00,000/- and 2% of which amounting to Rs.6,10,000/- was proposed to be considered for addition. The assessee failed to respond to the show cause notices. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment by adding an amount of Rs.5,80,000/- and Rs.6,10,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act for A.Y. 2014-15 and A.Y. 2015-16 respectively vide assessment orders dated 14.03.2022.

ITA Nos.2083 & 2084/KOL/2026 Manish Sureka; A.Y: 2014-15 & 2015-16 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) for both years. The Ld. CIT(A) vide his orders dated 16.03.2026 upheld the impugned additions made by the Assessing Officer.

4.

Before us, the Ld. AR argued that the percentage of 2% adopted by the Assessing Officer was on the higher side. It was represented that the Co-ordinate Benches of the ITAT in various decisions have confirmed a lesser percentage as follows:

Sl. No. Case Details Percentage 1. DCIT CC (1)(4) Kolkata Vs. Mahendra Sethia 0.32% ITA No.48 to 54/Kol/2016 dated 01-06-2018 2. DCIT, CC-8(1), Mumbai Vs. Chaitali Sales Agency 0.15% Pvt Ltd (ITA no. 4908, 4910/Mum/2016) dated 17-05-2017 3. Goldstar Finvest Pvt Ltd v DCIT CC-46 0.15% ITA No.74/Mum/2015 dated 29-12-2016 It was also represented that the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of PCIT Central-2, Kolkata Vs. M/s Safeco Projects Pvt. Ltd. in GA No.276/2019 in ITAT No.32/2019, dated 07.03.2019 upheld the adoption of commission @0.25% and it was pleaded that only 0.25% may be considered as commission income.

5.

We have considered the submissions. We consider it appropriate to direct the Assessing Officer to consider the above decisions and adopt appropriate rate of commission after hearing the assessee and accordingly recompute the total income. Page | 3

ITA Nos.2083 & 2084/KOL/2026 Manish Sureka; A.Y: 2014-15 & 2015-16 6. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 19.08.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) (GOPALAN GURUSAMY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 19.08.2026 DP, PS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. CIT(DR) //TRUE COPY// DEPUTY REGISTRAR KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA

More judgments on Section 131

All 4,706 judgments and leading authorities on Section 131 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →