DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 5, DELHI vs. VINOD KUMAR, DELHI
ITA No.3371/Del/2023
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH “A” NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3371/Del/2023
िनधा रणवष /Assessment Year: 2012-13
DCIT,
Room No.345,
Income Tax Office,
ARA Centre, Jhandewalan,
New Delhi.
बनाम
Vs.
VINOD KUMAR
H.No.241, Village Mundlana,
Tehsil, Gohana, District Sonipat,
Haryana.
PAN No.AOZPK9771K
अपीलाथ Appellant
यथ/Respondent
Revenue by Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Assessee by Shri Amit Rustagi, CA
सुनवाईकतारीख/ Date of hearing:
04.08.2025
उोषणाकतारीख/Pronouncement on 26.09.2025
आदेश /O R D E R
PER C.N. PRASAD, J.M.
This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld.
CIT(Appeals)-23, New Delhi dated 27.09.2023 for the AY 2012-13 in deleting the addition made in the assessment order.
2. Heard rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 144/147
2
of the Act dated 18.12.2019 bringing to tax Rs.4,19,09,065/- being
10% of Rs.41,90,90,650/- as commission income holding that the assessee was one of the beneficiaries of accommodation entries from various parties referred to in the assessment order in the absence of any details, explanations furnished by the assessee before the Assessing Officer.
3. On appeal the Ld. CIT(Appeals) restricted the addition to Rs.83,818/- after considering the submissions and evidences furnished by the assessee observing as under:
“16. As accepted by appellant in reply of questionno.36, 37 and 38
and also mentioned in para 5.3 of assessment order above, appellant himself admitted that he was involved in cash transaction activities and earned commission @ Rs.2,000/- per crores on such transactions.
The Assessing Officer accepted the facts admitted by the appellant in his statement and accordingly, commission income was calculated
@2,000/- per crore while making assessment foray 2013-14 and AY
2016-17 to 2018-19. Details of addition made on account of commission in various AYs are as under:
S.No.
AY
Date of order u/s 153A/143(3)
Returned
Income
Addition on account of commission
Assessed
Income
1. 2013-14
13.05.2021
3,18,930
960
3,19,890
2. 2014-15
13.05.2021
3,74,080
Nil
3,74,080
3. 2015-16
13.05.2021
3,58,540
Nil
3,58,540
4. 2016-17
13.05.2021
5,00,260
7,660
5,07,920
5. 2017-18
13.05.2021
4,65,050
2,880
4,67,930
6. 2018-19
13.05.2021
3,57,580
18,26,580
21,84,160
7. 2019-20
13.05.2021
3,65,760
5,21,900
(cash seized)
8,87,660
17. During the year under consideration i.e. AY 2012-13, Assessing
Officer assumed commission income @10% of cash transaction of Rs.41,90,90,650/-. The reason for assuming commission @10% is neither discussed nor mentioned in assessment order passed. In anyway, the commission income assessed by the AO for the impugned year is on the higher side. As per the rule of consistency, the AO
3
ought to have maintained consistency in computing income from the transactions if the facts of the case are the same.
18. I have considered facts of the case as well as written submissions of the appellant. It is observed that income of the appellant has been assessed by accepting ‘commission income @Rs.2,000/- per crore’ as admitted by appellant in his statement (for assessment orders u/s 153A for AY 2013-14, 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19). It is observed that there is no material change in facts and circumstances in the present case. Accordingly, commission income of appellant for AY
2012-13 is restricted @ Rs.2,000/- per crore as considered by AO during assessment proceedings for AY 2013-14 and 2016-17 to 2018-19. 19. The Assessing Officer has held that appellant has given accommodation entry amounting to Rs.41,90,90,650/- during the year under consideration. The income earned by the appellant on account of accommodation entries given @Rs.2,000/- per crore comes to Rs.83,818/-. The addition made by the Assessing Officer is restricted
Rs.83,818/-. Accordingly, the appellant get relief of Rs.4,18,25,247/-.
20. In view of the above discussion, the appeal of the appellant in respect of Ground No.7 is partly allowed.”
As could be seen from the above, the Ld. CIT(A) restricted the commission income to Rs.83,818/- as against Rs.4,19,09,065/- observing that in the assessments made u/s 153A of the Act in the case of the assessee for assessment years 2013-14 to 2018-19 the commission income was assessed @ 2,000 per crore. In the circumstances, since in the assessments made u/s 153A the commission income was assessed at 2,000 per crore, we see no reason not to adopt the same percentage for the assessment year under consideration and thus, we hold that the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly adopted the said percentage. Hence, we sustain the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and reject the grounds raised by the Revenue. 4
In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 26.09.2025 (AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA) (C.N. PRASAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 26.09.2025 *Kavita Arora, Sr. P.S.