ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-26, NEW DELHI V. NARESH KUMAR JAIN, NEW DELHI

ITA 1755/DEL/2019

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax against the order of the CIT(A), which had reduced the commission income addition from Rs. 12,52,91,388 to Rs. 2,37,66,799 for the assessment year 2016-17. The reduction was based on a recalculated commission rate of 1.04% applied to the turnover of accommodation entries, as opposed to the 2% rate initially used by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal referenced a similar case involving the assessee's brother, where a commission rate of 0.47% was applied following the elimination of circular transactions. The Tribunal upheld this precedent, directing the Assessing Officer to apply the same rate in the current case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 312901 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Other Referred Cases: Reliance Industries Limited Vs. SEBI
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUMAN MALIK
• Assessee Lawyers: VED JAIN; SRASHTI
• Keywords: Set aside; Unexplained cash credit; Search and seizure; Accommodation entries
• Section: 143(3); 153A

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 1755/DEL/2019 A.Y.: 2016-17 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, Central Circle-26, New Delhi ROOM NO. 323, E-2, ARA CENTRE, JHANDEWALAN EXTN., NEW DELHI – 55 VS SHRI NARESH KUMAR JAIN, 107, SAVERA APPARTMENT, SECTOR-13, ROHINI, NEW DELHI-85 (PAN: ACCPJ9547R) (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Shri Ved Jain, Adv., & Ms. Srashti, CA Department by : Ms. Suman Malik, CIT(DR) Date of hearing : 24.04.2025 Date of pronouncement : 30.04.2025 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM : This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-29, Delhi dated 31.12.2018 pertaining to assessment year 2016-17 on the following grounds:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in restrict addition at Rs. 2,37,66,799/- as against the addition of Rs. 12,52,91,388/- made in the assessment order on account of commission income from the accommodation entry business by taking the rate of 1.04% for charging of commission income on the turnover of accommodation entries without considering the fact that in the assessment order the transactions among the shell concerns were already eliminated from the total turnover and the remaining transactions of commission were quantified @2% of total turnover. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the protective addition of Rs. 3,00,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained cash credits without considering the fact that the assessee has failed to produce directors of the shell concern to verify the identity of the company, genuineness of the transactions and creditworthiness of the concern. 2. In this case, AO levied the addition of Rs. 12,52,91,288/- on account of 2% commission income from accommodation entry business and deleted the protective addition 2 of Rs. 3,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit in the form of unsecured loan. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition at Rs. 2,37,66,799/- (@1.04% of turnover of Rs. 228,52,69,083) as against the addition of Rs. 12,52,91,288/- levied by the AO. Against the above, Revenue is in appeal before us. 3. At the time of hearing, Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer. Per contra, Ld. AR for the assesee submitted that the appeals for AY 2010-11 to 2016-17 filed by the assessee and appeals for AY 2010-11 to 2015-16 filed by the Revenue have been disposed, whereby the Tribunal has followed the order passed in the case of brother of the assessee dated 28.04.2023 being ITA No. 1318 to 1324/Del/2019 and ITA No. 2888 to 2894/Del/2019 has held that the turnover as determined by the CIT(A) is correct and the commission is restricted to @ 0.47% of the turnover as determined by the CIT(A), which do not require any interference. Further the ITAT in the said order has held that protective addition can at best be treated as obtained out of the assessee's undisclosed commission income which has already been brought to tax. Following the same precedent, the ITAT had directed the AO to verify the same as stated above, which action of the Tribunal need not require any interference. Hence, the appeal of the Revenue may be dismissed. 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. It is intimated during the hearing by the Ld. AR that the captioned matter came up before this Tribunal for AY 2010- 11 to 2016-17 bearing ITA No. 1325/Del/2019 to 1331/Del/2019 (Assessee Appeal) and ITA No. 1749/Del/2019 to ITA No. 1754/ Del/2019 (Department Appeal). These appeals were disposed of by a common order dated 24.05.2023. However, one departmental appeal bearing ITA No. 1755/Del/2019 remains pending due to a clerical error, since the name of respondent was wrongly stated as Rajesh Kumar instead of the correct name of the assessee, Naresh Kumar Jain, in Form 36, by the department. It was further submitted that now, the department has corrected this typographical error in the revised Form 36 and is in appeal before the Tribunal. We find that the appeals for AY 2010-11 to 2016-17 filed by the assessee and appeals for AY 2010-11 to 2015-16 filed by the Revenue have been disposed, whereby the Tribunal has followed the order passed in the case of brother of the assessee dated 28.04.2023 being ITA No. 1318 to 1324/Del/2019 and ITA No. 2888 to 2894/Del/2019 has held that the turnover as determined by the CIT(A) is correct and the commission is restricted to @ 0.47% of the turnover as determined by the CIT(A). Further the ITAT in the said order has held that protective addition can at best be treated as obtained out of the assessee's undisclosed commission income which has already been brought to tax. Following the same precedent, 3 the ITAT had directed the AO to verify the same as stated above. We further note that in the appeal filed by the Revenue, there are two grounds. The finding in respect of Ground No. 1 is in Para 11 to 12 of the ITAT Order dated 24.05.2023 reads as under:- “11. Upon careful consideration, we note that identical issue was considered by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of the brother of the assessee, Anand Kumar Jain in ITA Nos.1318 to 1324/Del/ 2019 and ITA Nos.2888 to 2894/Del/2019 vide order dated 28.04.2023. The adjudication of the ITAT is as under :- “7. The moot issue involved in this case pertain to determination of the commission income of the proven accommodation entry operator. 8. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and derives income under head house property, business and profession and other sources. A search and seizure operation was carried out on business and residential premises of the Anand Jain and Naresh Jain group on 17.12.2015 and subsequently, notice u/s 153A dated 27.10.2017 was issued to the assessee. 9. The AO held that assessee manages and controls shell companies and routes money through such concerns for providing accommodation entries. The list of such alleged concerns is as under: Name of Alleged Concerns 1.Ambarnuj Finance & Investments Pvt. Ltd. 2.Chandra Buildcon Pvt. Ltd 3.Garima Jain 4.Jai Maa Bhawani Overseas Pvt. Ltd. 5.JKS Impex Pvt. Ltd. 6.Kavita Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. 7.KCJ Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. 8.Reena Jain 9. Shivangi Garments Pvt. Ltd. 10. Shivaji Garments Pvt. Ltd. 11. Sukumar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. 4 10. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted that the total turnover calculated by the AO and the rate of commission charged by the AO was not correct. 11. It was also submitted by the assessee that the inclusion of banking transactions related one concern namely M/s Ambarnuj Finance & Investments Ltd. in the working of turnover of accommodation entries is incorrect and it is evident from the fact that assessment proceedings of the said company have been completed under section 153A and 143(3) and no adverse inference had been drawn against M/s Ambarnuj Finance & Investments Ltd. It was therefore requested to exclude the transactions related to M/s Ambarnuj Finance & Investments Ltd. from the working of turnover of accommodation entries alleged to be provided by the assessee. 12. The AO, on the basis of seized material and post search investigations, held that assessee is an accommodation entry provider and therefore completed the assessment order computing the commission income @2% on the turnover of the amounts rotated/routed. 13. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). 14. During the appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed written submissions pleading that, i. The working of the total turnover of the concerns by the AO is incorrect ii. The AO has taken and added both credit and debit side which is incorrect as only credit side transactions of the alleged shell concerns should be taken instead of both debit and credit. iii. Circular transactions among the concerns have not been eliminated by the AO while computing income iv. Turnover with respect to M/s Ambarnuj Finance Investment Pvt. Ltd. should be eliminated as no adverse inference can be drawn on the transactions of the entities. v. Ad-hoc rate of 2% should be rejected and average rate of commission as coming out of seized material should be applied. vi. The AO has ignored the ‘short and excess account’ in the Tally Data which represents the total actual commission earned by the 5 assessee and Sh. Naresh Kumar Jain and also the correct amount of accommodation entries given by the assessee and Sh. Naresh Kumar Jain. vii. The short and excess a/c clearly depicts the consolidated commission income earned on the accommodation entries by the assessee and Sh. Naresh Kumar Jain and the expenditure incurred with the respect to the earning of said income. Accordingly, actual commission can be computed based on the data appearing in short and excess account and the same may at best be charged in the hands of the assessee as commission income on the turnover. viii. The working for the consolidated net commission rate is as under: Short and excess A/c Total (in Rs.) Receipts(Credit side) 220,616,047/- Less: Expenses(Debit side) 151,352,004/- Net commission income 6,92,64,043/- ix. It was submitted that the total turnover of alleged accommodation entries of the assessee and Sh. Naresh Kumar Jain. The computation is hereunder: Particulars Total Turnover Appearing in Tally(Jain Folder) 19,696,128,227 Less: Circular transactions among the shell company 4,842,477,767 Net Turnover as per Tally Data 14,853,650,460 x. that as per the above working the net rate of commission earned by the appellant comes to 6,92,64,043/14,85,36,50,460) *100 which at best can be applied on the turnover of accommodation entries after elimination of circular transactions. xi. The assessee also submitted a detailed working of the correct year wise turnover of the accommodation entries for the assessee which is also reproduced below: Particulars AY 2010-11 AY 2011-12 AY 2012-13 AY 2013-14 AY 2014-15 AY 2015-16 AY 2016-17 Total Working of Turnover Credit entries taken by the AO 143,029,299 3088,746,297 527,895,388 942,231,774 3,507,589,328 543,865,839 826,996,284 9,580,354,209 6 Less: Circular transactions among the shell company/ 27,418,331 2,928,640,846 413,194,791 679,514,294 3,261,972,453 283,637,659 109,750,000 7,704,128,374 Credit entries to be consider as 115,610,968 160,105,451 114,700,597 262,717,480 245,616,875 260,228,180 717,246,284 1,876,225,835 15. Thereafter, considering the detailed submission and explanation furnished by the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) restricted the rate of commission to 1.04% as against 2% computed by the AO by holding as under in AY 2010-11. A similar finding has been given for all the assessment years. For the sake of ready reference, the relevant part of the order of the ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: “With regard to M/s Ambarnuj Finance & Investments Ltd. 9.7 Further on going through the replies filed before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings under section 153A, it is noticed that the company has submitted the details of loans given, repayment of the same and interest income shown on the same during the year under consideration. The AO has not drawn any adverse inference in this regard in the assessment order. From the above facts, it is evident that in year under consideration, the company was engaged in the business of financing and investment activities which are not doubted by the AO in the assessment order. Further, the returned loss of the company has been accepted and there is no adverse inference/finding of the AO that the company was involved in providing any accommodation entry. In view of these facts, I am of the view that since the business operations of M/s Ambarnuj Finance & Investments Pvt. Ltd. are not in doubt in the year under consideration, therefore, it was not justified on the part of the AO to include Rs. 4,64,29,476/- being the aggregate of debit and credit bank transactions of M/s Ambarnuj Finance & Investments Pvt. Ltd. in the working of the commission income, hence, the said figure of Rs. 4,64,29,476/- is reduced from the calculation of commission. With regard to calculation of turnover/quantum of accommodating entries after eliminating the impact of circular transactions and percentage of commission 9.11 From the above instances, I find that the AO has pointed out that the “short & excess account” in the tally data means the commission received by the Jain Brothers. Further from the above quoted instance and other examples quoted by the AO in the assessment order, it is clear that the appellant and his brother use to maintain the data of providing accommodation entries including bank transfers, cash exchanged and commission charged in Jain Folder Tally data. Further the turnover analysis placed in the paper book also depicts that majority of credit entries in the bank statement of shell companies matches with the entries posted in the Jain folder tall data. Accordingly, it becomes relevant to consider 7 the entire short and excess account in the Jain Folder tally data for the purpose of evaluation of actual amount and rate of commission earned by the appellant and his brother on the accommodation entries provided, instead of a few stray instances considered by the AO in the assessment order, when complete details are available in the seized data itself. 9.12 In the tally data the year-wise aggregate of debit and credit side of short and excess account is mentioned. It appears that the credit side represents the commission received and debit side represents the commission paid:- Short and AY 2010- 11 AY 2011- 12 AY 2012- 13 AY 2013- 14 AY 2014- 15 AY 2015- 16 AY 2016-17 Total Receipts(Credit 27,377,147 20,165,241 22,557,902 38,865,246 38,186,848 73,503,663 - 220,616,047 Expenses( Debit side) 27,336,593 19,510,546 17,996,407 22,794,455 31,921,772 31,792,231 - 151,352,004 9.13 Further the turnover as per tally data after eliminating circular transactions or the aforesaid six years for which details are available are as under:- Particulars AY 2010- 11 AY 2011- 12 AY 2012- 13 AY 2013- 14 AY 2014- 15 AY 2015- 16 AY 2016- 17 Total Turnover Appearing In Tally (Jain 523,137,544 1,463,935,931 2,694,686,090 3,681,193,690 5,303,052,720 6,030,122,251 - 19,696,128,227 Less: Circular transactions among the shell company 83,550,600 453,336,100 913,688,481 799,494,446 985,521,370 1,606,886,770 - 4,842,477,767 Net Turnover as per Tally Data 439,586,944 1,010,599,831 1,780,997,609 2,881,699,244 4,317,531,350 4,423,235,481 - 14,853,650,460 The above table shows that the appellant has received commission of Rs. 22,06,16,047/- and made payments of Rs. 15,13,2,004/- in short and excess a/c over the period of six years for the total turnover of the six years for the total turnover of the six years of Rs. 1485,36,50,460/- The average rate of commission received on total turnover herein above comes to 1.49% (Rs. 22,06,16,047 / 1485,36,50,460*100). Whereas the average rate of commission paid comes to 1.02% (Rs. 15,13,52,004 / 1485,36,50,460*100). Thus, the net commission rate in the tally data seized is search comes to 0.47%. The appellant in this regard, submitted that receipts net off of payment/expenses should be taxed in its hands as commission only. In this regard, the appellant has pointed out that seized record is the best evidence and when income is being considered on the basis of seized record, the expenses as recorded in the seized document also need to be reduced. It is only the net income, which is to be considered. I have examined the seized 8 tally data. On going through the same, the contention of the appellant that expenses side represents the expense incurred by the appellant in arranging accommodation entries is found to be correct. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it will not be appropriate to allow deduction of entire expenses. Accordingly, taking a holistic view, I consider that 30% of the gross commission receipts (@1.49%) are the expenditure incurred for earning commission income. Accordingly, I find it appropriate to take rate of 1.04% (1.49% - 0.45%) for charging of commission income on the turnover of accommodation entries in the hands of the appellant.” 9.13 Since, the facts in the case of the appellant are same as that of his brother Sh. Naresh Kumar Jain, therefore, I am inclined to adopt rate of commission at 1.04% as worked in the case of bother of the appellant. The total turnover of the appellant will be as follows:- Particulars AY 2010-11 AY 2011-12 AY 2012-13 AY 2013-14 AY 2014-15 AY 2015-16 AY 2016-17 Total Working of Turnover Credit entries taken by the AO 143,029,299 3088,746,297 527,895,388 942,231,774 3,507,589,328 543,865,839 826,996,284 9,580,354,209 Less: Circular transactions among the shell company/ eliminated transactions 27,418,331 2,928,640,846 413,194,791 679,514,294 3,261,972,453 283,637,659 109,750,000 7,704,128,374 Credit entries to be consider as turnover 115,610,968 160,105,451 114,700,597 262,717,480 245,616,875 260,228,180 717,246,284 1,876,225,835 9.14 In view of the above working the average rate of commission income of 1.04% will be charged in the hands of the appellant on the turnover of Rs. 11,56,10,968/- for the year under consideration. Accordingly, the AO is directed to restrict the addition at Rs. 12,02,355/-.” 16. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee and the Revenue filed an appeals before the Tribunal. 17. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record. 18. We find that the AO himself has given a finding that circular transactions should be eliminated while computing the turnover of accommodation entries. However, while arriving at the turnover of accommodation entries given by the assessee such elimination of 9 circular transactions was left out to be made. The ld. CIT(A) has accepted the working of turnover furnished by the assessee after eliminating circular transactions or transactions on which income had already been offered. The ld. CIT(A) has rightly held that the turnover with respect to M/s Ambarnuj Finance Investment Pvt. Ltd. should be eliminated as the assessment proceedings of M/s Ambarnuj Finance Investment Pvt. Ltd. have been completed and no adverse inference has been drawn against the said company. The ld. CIT(A) has accepted the gross commission income as appearing in short & excess A/c in Tally Data of Jain Folder. However, what has not been accepted by the ld. CIT(A) is the expenses incurred in earning such commission income which was also duly reflected in the same short & excess A/c in the Tally Data of Jain Folder which is a part of the seized material. The ld. CIT(A) in Para 9.4 of Pg. 20 of ld. CIT(A)’s Order for AY 2010-11 has stated that, “the contention of the appellant that expenses side represent the expense incurred by the appellant in arranging accommodation entries is found to be correct. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it will not be appropriate to allow deduction of entire expenses. Accordingly, taking a holistic view, I consider that 30% of the gross commission receipts (@1.49%) are the expenditure incurred for earning commission income.” 19. Thereafter the ld. CIT(A) proceeded to compute commission income by applying a rate of 1.04% (i.e. gross commission receipts @1.49% less 30% of gross commission receipts i.e. 0.45%) on the turnover offered and accepted by ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has not brought anything on record but rejected the expenses incurred on earning the commission income and allowed 30% of commission income as expenses incurred for earning such income. The decision of ld. CIT(A) to restrict the expenses is purely on ad-hoc basis. While the commission income appearing in Short & excess A/c in Tally Data of Jain Folder is accepted, rejection of expenses appearing in the same short & excess A/c in Tally Data of Jain Folder is not tenable and without any logical conclusion. A document has to be read in its whole prospective but not in such a way that the data seized is interpreted to result in two diametrically opposite derivations. A summary of turnover of accommodation entries and consequently addition of commission income computed by AO and the turnover and commission income confirmed by ld. CIT(A) vis-à-vis commission income as per the assessee is tabulated below: 10 Assessment Turnover Turnover as Average Average Yearly Average Year calculated as per assessee & Yearly Commission Yearly per AO accepted by Commission calculated by Commission CIT(A) charged by the AO @2% on the total turnover on ad hoc basis CIT(A) @1.04% on the total turnover(by arbitrarily restricting expenses on which should have been considered @0.47% on the total AY 2010-11 27,66,87,335 115,610,968 55,33,746 12,02,355 5,43,372 AY 2011-12 618,05,53,386 160,105,451 12,36,11,068 16,65,096 7,52,496 AY 2012-13 105,04,22,587 114,700,597 2,10,08,452 11,92,886 5,39,093 AY 2013-14 187,86,43,617 262,717,480 3,75,72,872 27,32,262 12,34,772 AY 2014-15 696,49,99,924 245,616,875 13,92,99,999 25,54,416 11,54,399 AY 2015-16 109,26,08,571 260,228,180 2,18,52,171 27,06,373 12,23,072 AY 2016-17 180,12,05,658 717,246,284 3,60,24,113 74,59,361 33,71,058 Total 1924,51,21,078 187,62,25,835 38,49,02,421 1,95,12,749 88,18,262 20. Reliance is being placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Industries Limited Vs. SEBI, 2022 (8) TMI 423 - dated August 5, 2022 wherein it was held that, “57. Before we part with the present appeal, another disconcerting aspect of this case that comes to the fore is SEBI’s attempt to cherrypick the documents it proposes to disclose. There is a dispute about the fact that certain excerpts of the opinion of Justice (Retd.) B. N. Srikrishna, were disclosed to the appellant herein. It is the allegation of the appellant that while the parts which were disclosed, vaguely point to the culpability of the appellant, SEBI is refusing to divulge the information which exonerate it. Such cherrypicking by SEBI only derogates the commitment to a fair trial. In Nea Karteria Maritime Co Ltd v. Atlantic and Great Lakes Steamship Corporation, [1981] Com LR 138 at 139, Mustill J. held as under: “I believe that the principle underlying the rule of practice exemplified in Burnell v British Transport Commission [1956] 1 QB 187 is that where a party is deploying in court material which would otherwise be privileged, the opposite party and the court must have an opportunity of satisfying themselves that what the party has chosen to release from privilege represents the whole of the material relevant to the issue in question. To allow an individual item to be plucked out of context would be to risk injustice through its real weight or meaning being misunderstood.” 11 The aforesaid principle is often referred to as the ‘Cherrypicking’ principle. 58. In the case at hand, SEBI could not have claimed privilege over certain parts of the documents and at the same time, agreeing to disclose some part. Such selective disclosure cannot be countenanced in law as it clearly amounts to cherry picking.” 21. Therefore, as per the explanation and submissions of the assessee, whole of the expenses incurred in earning commission income shall be allowed and accordingly the net rate of commission earned by the assessee i.e. 0.47% is the best which can be applied on the turnover of the accommodation entries after elimination of circular transactions. Thus the maximum addition which can be made in the hands of the assessee on account of commission earned on turnover of the accommodation entries worked out as under: Assessment Year Turnover (after elimination of circular Commission rate Commission Income AY 2010-11 115,610,968 0.47% 5,43,372/- AY 2011-12 160,105,451 0.47% 7,52,496/- AY 2012-13 114,700,597 0.47% 5,39,093/- AY 2013-14 262,717,480 0.47% 12,34,772/- AY 2014-15 245,616,875 0.47% 11,54,399/- AY 2015-16 260,228,180 0.47% 12,23,072/- AY 2016-17 717,246,284 0.47% 33,71,058/- 22. The AO is therefore directed to give effect to this order accordingly. Before parting we would like to clarify that the determination of expenses and the commission earned is based on the incriminating material specifically found and seized during the 12 courses of search and hence the percentage of commission earned cannot be considered to be the same in other similar cases.” 12. Since facts are identical and same search was conducted on both the brothers, we follow the principle of stare decisis and follow the aforesaid order. Hence, the rate of commission in the present cases is determined at 0.47%. AO is accordingly directed to follow the direction in the aforesaid ITAT order. 5. In view of above, it transpires that since commission in the aforesaid case was settled @ 0.47% for which the AO was directed to follow the directions of the Tribunal, as aforesaid. Hence, respectfully following the decision in the case of assessee’s brother Sh. Anand Kumar Jain (supra) we set aside the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) in the instant appeal and direct the AO with the similar directions as aforesaid. In the result, this ground of appeal raised by the Revenue is rejected. 6. As regards Ground No. 2 is concerned, we note that ITAT vide its order dated 24.05.2023 in Para no. 16 has held as under:- \"16. We have heard the parties. We note that the Ld. CIT(A) has held that the impugned amount can at best be treated as obtained out of assessee's undisclosed commission income which has already been brought to tax. We note that on identical issue, the Tribunal in ITA No.2889/Del/2019 in the case of Sh. Anand Kumar Jain, observed that such receipt form part of accommodation entries and that the AO may verify the same. Following the aforesaid precedent, we direct the AO to verify the same as stated above.\" 7. In view of above, it reveals that on this issue, the AO was directed to verify the same, as aforesaid. Hence, respectfully following the decision, as aforesaid, we direct the AO with 13 the similar directions as aforesaid. In the result, this ground of appeal raised by the Revenue is rejected. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced on 30/04/2025. Sd/- Sd/- - (SUDHIR KUMAR) (SHAMIM YAHYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SRBHATNAGAR Copy forwarded to: - 1. Appellant. 2. Respondent. 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT Assistant Registrar "