RAMESHCHANDRA RANGILDAS MEHTA,SURAT vs. ACIT(OSD), WARD3(2)(3), SURAT, SURAT

िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee by Shri Yogesh B Shah, AR राज" की ओर से /Revenue by Shri Mukesh Jain– Sr-DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing 13.01.2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date of 16.01.2025 pronouncement Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [for short to as “NFAC/Ld.CIT(A)] dated 22.12.2023 for assessment year (AY) 2010-11, which in turn arises out of assessment order passed by Assessing Officer under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 22.12.2017. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1). The learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in confirming the additions of Rs.35,42,855/- made by the Assessing Officer, considering profit @ 10% of receipts of Rs.3,54,28,550/- received by him for discounting of cheques/DD/RTGS business though the rate of 0.15% is accepted by appellate forum like ITAT for such business activities. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case addition of Rs.35,42,855 be deleted. Rameshchandra R Mehta 2)Interest u/s 243A, 234B, 234C is wrongly charged and should be deleted keeping in view facts and circumstances of the case. 3) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, penal action u/s 271(1)(c) should not be initiated. 4) The appellant craves leave to alter, delete, amend the grounds duly raised or to withdraw any ground of appeal.”

2. Rival submission of both the parties heard and record perused. The Ld. Authorized Representative (Ld.AR) of the assessee submits. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that grounds of appeal raised by assessee is covered in favour of assessee by the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2011-12 in R/Tax Appeal No.1203 of 2018 dated 15.07.2019. In assessment year 2011-12, similar income was estimated on total receipt of assessee @ 10%, however, on further appeal before Tribunal, the addition was restricted @ 2.00 % and on further appeal before Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, entire addition was deleted. Thus, grounds of appeal raised by assessee is squarely covered in favour of assessee. The Ld. AR of the assessee also relied upon the decision of this co- ordinate Bench of this Tribunal, in in the case of Shri Naman Yagnik (HUF), vs. ITO dated 12.01.2018 and would submit that on similar set of fact, addition @ 2.00 % on similar accommodation entries/nature of business was restricted and same was upheld by Tribunal.

3. On the other hand, Ld. Sr-DR for the Revenue supported the order of lower authorities. Ld. Sr-DR for the Revenue vehemently argued the contention of Ld.AR of the assesse that assessee himself admitted that he is engaged in providing accommodation entries. The assessee provided detailed accommodation entries to various entities as recorded in para-6 of assessment 2 Rameshchandra R Mehta order. The Assessing Officer in a reasonable manner, estimated 10% of profit on such addition. Before Ld.CIT(A), there was delay of 19 days in filing appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) graciously condoned such delay. The Ld. Sr-DR for the Revenue submits to decide the appeal on merit, Ld.CIT(A) issued six show causes notices in para-5.1 in impugned order. However, assessee despite availing ample opportunities has not given any details. The Ld.CIT(A) has left no option but to decide the appeal on merits. Since no details furnished by assessee, Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition made by Assessing Officer. So far as reliance placed by Ld. AR of the assessee regarding decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in assessee’s own case (supra) for assessment year 2011-12. The Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue submits that Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court has categorically recorded that lower authorities have proceeded on guise and estimated the addition the facts of the year under consideration are absolutely on different fact, the assessee himself accepted about providing accommodation entries. This Bench relied on the decision of Vijay Protein Ltd. (1996) 58 ITD 528 (Ahd) has estimated 25% addition on accommodation entries. Yet, the Assessing Officer has estimated only 10% of amount of accommodation entries. Since the order of Assessing Officer was confirmed by Ld.CIT(A) in ex parte order. Therefore, in case, this Bench is of the view that assessee deserves any leniency and matter may be restored back to the file of Assessing Officer otherwise it is a fit case to sustain the addition made by Assessing Officer.