DILIP JAYANTILAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 31, MUMBAI

आदेश / O R D E R

by explaining that for Assessment year 2011-12, similar addition was made for the entire chain, who earned the commission to the extent of 0.50%, out of which the assessee received meager amount. It was further asserted that ad-hoc addition has been made by the Assessing Officer simply to protect the interest of the Revenue against the disclose percentage of 0.01% . On the other hand, the ld. DR, Smt. Sunita Billa, defended the addition by making a reference to A. Y. 2011-

12. In nut shell, the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was defended.

2.1. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee was employee of M/s Avon Corporation Ltd., declared income of Rs.1,68,740/-. Subsequently, a search and seizure operation u/s 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act) was carried out on Avon Corporation Group on 04/02/2011 and also the premises of the assessee. Certain documents were recovered from the premises of M/s Avon Corporation and also from the assessee, indicating that the assessee was engaged in providing accommodation entries of sales and purchases to various companies including M/s. Avon Corporation Ltd. for which the assessee was charging commission. Statement of the assessee was recorded, wherein, he admitted that he was getting commission ranging from 0.02% to 0.10%. Pursuant to notice u/s 153A of the Act, the assessee filed return at Rs.3,70,750/- offering additional income of Rs.2,02,715/- from the business of accommodation entries. However, while completing the assessment, the ld. Assessing Officer estimated the income at the rate of 0.50% on the total transaction of Rs.26,22,09,363/-, thus, the income was estimated at Rs.13,11,047/-. Finally, the assessment was completed at Rs.14,79,790/- while framing the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act. On appeal, before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer was sustained, against which the assessee is in further appeal before this Tribunal.

2.2. If the observation made in the assessment order, leading to addition made to the total income, conclusion drawn in the impugned order, material available on record, assertions made by the ld. respective counsel, if kept in juxtaposition and analyzed, there is not dispute to the fact that while recording the statement, the assessee accepted that he earned the income ranging from 0.02% to 0.10%, whereas, the ld. Assessing Officer made ad-hoc addition at the rate of 0.50%. In such a situation to put an end to the litigation, considering the material facts, I am of the view that it will meet the end of justice, if the addition is restricted to 0.20%, in place of 0.50% sustained by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), thus, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.

Finally, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.

This order was pronounced in the open in the presence of ld. representatives from both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 14/01/2016.