PRAMOD GADIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 46, MUMBAI

आदेश / O R D E R

PER BENCH All these appeals of the assessee pertain to the same assessee on same issue. Therefore they are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.

2.1 Before the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that similar issue arose in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2004-05 in on similar set of facts the Tribunal has directed the Assessing Officer to apply 0.5% commission total deposits by observing as under: -

“5. After considering the order of the AO, CIT(A) and the submission of both the parties, I found that on similar facts in case of M/s Alembic Securities Private Limited (supra), the issue has been discussed at great length, wherein I have 3 Shri Pramod Gadia taken a view that if the net profit at the rate of 0.50% is taken, that will meet the end of justice. The findings in the aforesaid case have been recorded in para 9, which are as under:- “9. I have heard rival submissions and considered them carefully. After considering the relevant material and perusing the various case laws along with the order of the AO as well as the order of CIT(A), I found that the assessee deserves to succeed in part. This is also a fact that certain documents were found which indicated earning of commission between 1.5% to 3.06% but these evidences were not related to the assessee as they were related to different entities or agents. The submission of Mr. Mukesh Choksi, who handled all these companies were recorded and he has categorically stated that he used to charge a commission at the rate of 0.03% of transaction conducted through various bank accounts and have charged commission at the rate of 0.15% of the transaction belonging to beneficiaries. Affidavit was also filed. Copy of the same is placed on record, it is further seen that a search was also conducted in case of M/s Mihir Agencies Pvt. Ltd. The matter came upto the stage of the Tribunal and the Tribunal following other order of the Tribunal held that the commission income earned by the company i.e. M/s. Mihir Agencies Pvt. Ltd. at 0.15% was correct. While holding so, the Tribunal has followed the order of the Tribunal in case of M/s Goldstar Fin vest Pvt. Ltd. I further noted that in the case of M/s Richmond Securities Pvt. Ltd. again the Tribunal held that commission of 0.15% is reasonable. I further noted that the AO passed assessment under Section 143(3) for assessment year 2007-08 vide order dated 24-11-2008. In this case also the AO following the order of the Tribunal has accepted the commission at the rate of 0.15%, copy of this order is placed in the paper book. From these facts, it is emerges that even the department has accepted the earning of commission at the rate of 0.15%, however, I am of the view that since in the present case statement of various parties were recorded and certain material were also found, therefore, I feel that if the income is computed by applying a net commission of 0.50% instead of 0.15% declared by the assessee and 2% admitted by the AO, which is confirmed by the learned CIT(A), that will meet the end of justice. Accordingly, I direct the AO to recompute the income by taking a net profit rate of 0.50% of deposits for all relevant years in these appeals. I order accordingly.