DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 5, DELHI V. VINOD KUMAR, DELHI

ITA 3371/DEL/2023

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-23, New Delhi, which pertained to the assessment year 2012-13. The Revenue challenged the deletion of the addition made in the assessment order by the CIT(A). The Assessing Officer had initially assessed a commission income of Rs.4,19,09,065, assuming a 10% commission on a transaction amount of Rs.41,90,90,650, citing the assessee's involvement in accommodation entries. However, the CIT(A) reduced this amount significantly to Rs.83,818, applying a consistent commission rate of Rs.2,000 per crore as previously accepted in other assessment years. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the principle of consistency in tax assessments.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 773633 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 25-11-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJAY KUMAR ARORA
• Assessee Lawyers: AMIT RUSTAGI
• Keywords: Rule of consistency; Accommodation entries
• Section: 153A

Judgement Text

"ITA No.3371/Del/2023 1 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\u0014 Appellant \u0016\u0017यथ\u0014/Respondent Revenue by Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR Assessee by Shri Amit Rustagi, CA सुनवाईक\bतारीख/ Date of hearing: 04.08.2025 उ\u000eोषणाक\bतारीख/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 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.3371/Del/2023 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 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.3371/Del/2023 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.” 4. 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. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.3371/Del/2023 4 5. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 26.09.2025 Sd/- Sd/- (AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA) (C.N. PRASAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 26.09.2025 *Kavita Arora, Sr. P.S. Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "