DCIT,CC-2(1),KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN POORVA, KOLKATA vs. CLUBSIDE DEALCOM PRIVATE LIMITED, CHANDNI CHOWK,KOLKATA

Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

This is an appeal preferred by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Kolkata 26, (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 04.09.2025 for the AY 2012-13.

At the outset, we observe from the appeal folder that there is 2. a delay of 3 days in filing the appeal by the department in support of which a condonation petition was filed. It was stated in the condonation petition that the delay has occurred due to obtaining the administrative approvals from the competent authorities, which took quite a long time and accordingly, the delay may be condoned. The ld. AR, on the

“I have carefully considered the assessment order, Ground of appeal raised, the submissions made by the appellant, and the material placed on record. The appellant has taken various grounds of appeal which cover both legal objections, challenging the validity of the assessment proceedings, as well as grounds on merits, contesting the additions made by the AO, METAX DE 2. In the present case, the assessment of the appellant was completed under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer made an addition of 36,53,00,000 under Section 68 of the Act, being the share capital and share premium received on the issue of 1,82,650 equity shares of the appellant company at a face value of 10 per share and a premium of 1,990 per share, from 39 share applicants. The Assessing Officer sought to verify the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the said transactions. Although the share applicants had furnished their responses and documents in compliance with the notices under section 133(6) of the Act issued to them, they did not

“5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions in the light of material placed before us. We find that Ld. CIT(A) while deciding the appeals has also called for the assessment records and has rendered a finding that the assessee in response to several quarries raised by the AO had furnished the replies. Referring to the observation of AO in the assessment order, it is observed by Ld. CIT(A) that the entire case of AO is that the assessee is an accommodation entry operator and such fact was also admitted by the assessee himself. The assessee has admitted that he is engaged in the activity of providing accommodation entries to various beneficiaries through the entities controlled and managed by him. Thus, Ld. CIT(A) has concluded that the assessee is an entry operator which cannot be disputed. Ld. CIT(A) has also referred to the relevant portion of the statements of the assessee to conclude that the assessee is an accommodation entry provider. It is in this view of the situation she has held that the assessee is an accommodation entry operator. The AO has also reproduced post search statement of the assessee which is recorded on 14-04-2012 wherein the assessee in answering to question No. 9 has stated that he was receiving cheques and RTGS from the company in the shape of loans etc. which were deposited in different companies account which were maintained by him. He also stated that the cash was also being received which was deposited in the bank account of firms, proprietary concerns managed and controlled by him. Similarly, he has also stated that he was receiving cheques and RTGS from companies against the sale, which were being deposited in different bank accounts of the firms and companies managed and controlled by him. Further, the AO has also referred to the statement of the assessee recorded on 29-03-2012, wherein in response to question No. 10, it was stated by the assessee that whenever any company/concern wishes to take accommodation entries from him through various CAs operating in this field, the cash was received from them to give the entries through cheques from any of the entities controlled by him on which commission is received in the range of 0.75% to 1.75%. In answer to question No. 12, it was also stated that he was receiving such commission in cash. Further, the fact of receiving commission has also been confirmed through the evidence found in the shape of laptop of the assessee which was seized and marked as annexure A-37, which according to AO as per observation in his assessment order, has revealed that assessee was receiving brokerage/commission at the rate of 1% to 1.50%. The AO has also listed out 88 entities in the assessment order which are managed and

5.1 In the background of the aforesaid discussions and respectfully following the precedents, as aforesaid, we are of the considered view that Ld. CIT(A) did not commit any error in holding that Assessing Officer was not right in taxing the total turnover of the entries as an unexplained cash credit in the hands of the assessee, who is an entry provider and since the beneficiaries

Authority deciding the matter Name of the assessee Rate of Commission Special Bench of ITAT, New Delhi Sh. Manoj Aggarwal 0.35% Income Tax Settlement Commission, Sh. S.K. Gupta 0.80% Principle Bench, New Delhi ITAT, New Delhi Sh. Sanjay Kumar Garg 0.20% ITAT, New Delhi Sh. Sanjay Rastogi 0.50% 6.1 Ld. CIT(A) after considering submissions of the assessee, has concluded that addition of commission to the extent of 0.80% is justified and accordingly she has sustained the addition to the extent of 0.80%. The assessee in his appeals is agitating the assessment of commission at 0.80% and against that the department in its appeal is agitating the deletion remaining part of the commission i.e. 0.70%. 6.2 We have heard both the parties and perused the records. We note that the entries provided by the assessee are mix-match of three types of entries as disclosed by the assessee in his statement recorded on 14-04-2012(post search). The rate of commission is not uniform in respect of these three types of entries. Therefore, to upheld the addition to the extent of 1.50% is not justified on the facts of the case more particularly when AO has not brought any material on record to justify the addition to this extent. In our opinion, looking in to the facts of the case and the decisions relied upon, Ld. CIT(A) is justified in taking commission rate 0.80%. Therefore, we decline to interfere in a such well reasoned finding of Ld. CIT(A), hence, we uphold the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and accordingly these grounds relating to the determination of rate of commission by the assessee as well as by the department are dismissed. 6.3 In view of above observations, the Ground-3 in respect of A.Y. 2010- 11 and 2011-12 and Ground-4 of appeal for A.Y. 2012-13 in Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed and Ground-1 of assessees appeal for all the three years are dismissed.

Order pronounced on 14.08.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY) (RAJESH KUMAR) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 14.08.2026 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS

Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT DR, ITAT, 4. 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, True Copy//

Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata