DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S BHAWANI PORTFOLIO PVT. LTD
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the ITAT's decision to reduce the commission rate based on past precedents and its finding that a ballpark rate could be arrived at were not perverse. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose.
What were the facts?
The assessee's bank credits were treated as accommodation entries due to a failure to provide satisfactory confirmations. The Assessing Officer estimated commission income at 2.25%. The ITAT partially allowed the assessee's appeal, setting aside the assessment orders.
What were the issues?
Whether the ITAT's reduction of the estimated commission rate was justified and whether a substantial question of law arose from the ITAT's order.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
ITA 158/2020 AND 163/2020
Page 1 of 3
$~1&2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 158/2020 & CM APPL. 7946/2020
DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Ajit Sharma, Advocate.
Versus
M/S BHAWANI PORTFOLIO PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent
Through: None.
AND
+ ITA 163/2020 & CM APPL. 8018/2020
DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Ajit Sharma, Advocate.
Versus
M/S. BHAWANI PORTFOLIO PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent
Through: None.
Date of Decision: 12th July, 2021. CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
J U D G M E N T MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)
The appeals have been heard by way of video conferencing. 2. Present appeals have been filed challenging the orders dated 23rd January, 2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [ITAT] in ITA No. 6351 of 2016 and ITA No. 6350 of 2016. Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:14.07.2021 14:40:02 Signature Not Verified
ITA 158/2020 AND 163/2020
Page 2 of 3
Learned counsel for the Appellant states that the Assessment orders established that the credit in the bank accounts of the respondent-Assessee were treated as accommodation entry transactions since the Assessee had failed to produce any satisfactory reply and confirmations for the said transactions. 4. He states that the Assessment Orders were upheld by the CIT(A) holding that the respondent-Assessee had failed to discharge his onus to establish the nature and source of each credit entry appearing in the bank accounts and therefore for want of necessary details and supporting evidence, the Assessing Officer was justified in treating all the credit entries appearing in the bank accounts as income for the purpose of estimating commission income at the rate of 2.25%. 5. He states that the ITAT vide the impugned orders dated 23rd January 2019 partially allowed the respondent-Assessee's appeals and set-aside the assessment orders and CIT(A) orders on the basis that in such illegal activities, no precedence of rate could be applied and further held that there cannot be any profit element in inter-group transactions. 6. He emphasises that the ITAT had overlooked the fact that the respondent-Assessee had admitted to providing accommodation entries. He adds that the error in the impugned order is that ITAT had failed to recognize that the respondent-Assessee had in fact failed to discharge his onus to establish the nature and source of each credit entry appearing in the bank accounts. He states that the Assessing Officer was therefore justified in treating all the credit entries including inter-group transactions appearing in the bank accounts as income for the purpose of estimating commission income and in applying the rate of 2.25%. Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:14.07.2021 14:40:02 Signature Not Verified
ITA 158/2020 AND 163/2020
Page 3 of 3
Having perused the paper book, this Court finds that the Tribunal in the impugned orders has upheld the appellant’s contention that the respondent used to provide accommodation entries upon charging commission. However, the Tribunal has held that just because some loose sheets had been found stating that percentage of commission was 1.69% to 2.5% in some transactions, it cannot be presumed that for all transactions the respondent had earned a similar rate of commission. 8. Further relying upon past decisions by a number of Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal adopting a commission rate ranging from 0.15% to 0.50%, in similar matters, the Tribunal passed the impugned order. 9. This Court is of the view that none of the aforesaid findings are so perverse that they warrant an interference in appeal jurisdiction under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This Court is also of the view that the Tribunal, being the last fact finding authority, was entitled to guess work and arrive at a ballpark rate of commission. Consequently, no substantial question of law arises in the present appeals. Accordingly, the appeals along with pending applications are dismissed. 10. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the order be also forwarded to the learned counsel through e-mail.
MANMOHAN, J
NAVIN CHAWLA, J JULY 12, 2021 AS Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:14.07.2021 14:40:02 Signature Not Verified
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026