INCOME TAX OFFICER, PIRAMAL CHAMBER LALABUG vs. AMISHA SUDHIR BHATT, MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal, considering the facts and a High Court judgment, found that the Assessee had identified beneficiaries for accommodation entries, a point considered by the CIT(A) who restricted the addition to 1%. However, the Tribunal enhanced this addition to 5% to cut short litigation and for substantial justice.
What were the facts?
The appeals were preferred by the Assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) concerning Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12. The core issue revolves around the addition made by the Assessing Officer for accommodation entries.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition made by the Assessing Officer for accommodation entries, restricted by the CIT(A), should be further enhanced to a reasonable percentage considering the identification of beneficiaries by the Assessee.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Buniyad Chemicals Ltd.17 citing172 Taxmann.com 462 · 2025 · HC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY
O R D E R Per: Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member: These appeals have been preferred by the Assessee against the even order dated 04.10.2024, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year (A.Ys.) 2010-11 and 2011-12.
As both the appeal are having involved identical facts and issue and therefore for the sake of brevity, the same were heard together and are being dispose off by this composite order and by taking into consideration (AY: 2010-11) as a lead case.
& 6314/M/2024 Amisha Sudhir Bhatt 3. In though the Ld. DR. has relied on the judgment passed by the PCIT vs Buniyad Chemicals Ltd. (2025)172 Taxman.com 462 (Bombay), wherein the Hon’ble High court in para no. 20 has held that CIT(A) has adopted a fair approach by stating that if the respondent-Assessee identifies the beneficiaries, then the rate of commission adopted should 0.3% of such identified beneficiaries and if the respondent-Assessee fails to identify the beneficiaries, then in that case the sum credited in the books of account, would stand confirmed u/s 68 of the Act. Therefore, this judgment and particular finding of the Hon’ble High court favors the case of the Assessee, as in the Assessee’s case the Assessee has identified the beneficiaries and claimed to be a conduit for providing accommodation entries, as held by the Ld. Commissioner in the impugned order and therefore the Ld. Commissioner restricted the addition to the tune of @ 1% of the accommodation entries of Rs. 35,05,050/-.
The Ld. DR somehow praying for upholding the addition @ 100% of the accommodation entries or alternatively enhancement of addition to a reasonable percentage, as against @ 1% as restricted by the Ld. Commissioner.
On the contrary, the Ld. AR. of the Assessee though has prayed for affirmation of the impugned order, however alternatively prayed that the addition if any to be restored as made by the AO, can be enhanced at reasonable percentage of 3% to 5%.
Thus, in order to cut short, the litigation and for substantial justice, this court is inclined to enhance the addition restricted @ 1% by the Ld. Commissioner, to 5% of the accommodation entries amounting to Rs. 35,05,050/- and thus the AO is directed to made the addition @ 5% of the accommodation entries and recompute the Assessee’s tax liability accordingly.
In the result, in view of the judgment in ITA 6313/M/24, both the appeals are partly allowed in the same terms.
Order pronounced in the open court on 10.06.2025.
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
