M/s. Sonus India (P) Ltd, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 1149/DEL/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 58746 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-03-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 21-02-2012
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 27-03-2009
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S MOHANTY
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Share purchase agreement; Accommodation entries
• Section: 143(3); 147; 68; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH G : NEW DELHI) SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND BEFORE SHRI B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1149/DEL./2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2000-01) M/S. SONUS INDIA (P) LTD., VS. ITO, WARD 9 (1), 475, LAJPAT RAI MARKET, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI 110 006. (PAN : AAFCS1003B) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ANIL JAIN, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SHRI S. MOHANTY, DR ORDER PER B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATES FROM THE ORDER OF CIT (APPEALS)-XII, NEW DELHI DATED 01.12.2008 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER :- 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE REOP ENING OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147/148 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDIT ION OF RS.10 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY TREATING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT IN THE HANDS OF THE COMPANY U/S 68 OF T HE INCOME-TAX ACT. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDIT ION OF RS.10,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED COMMISSION PAID TO ENTRY OPER ATOR FOR OBTAINING THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY OF RS.10 LAKHS BEING @ 1%. 4. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS AGAINST LAW AND F ACTS OF THE CASE. ITA NO.1149/DEL./2009 2 5. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE RIGHT TO ADD, AMEN D OR WITHDRAW ANY GROUND OF APPEAL, AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APP EAL. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY INCORP ORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 ON 21.05.1999. THERE WAS NO BUSINESS ACTIVITY DURING THE YEAR. INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED FROM INVESTIGATION WING UNIT-V, DELHI THAT ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED AMOUNT OF RS.5,00,000/- ON 01.10.1999 FROM PARIVARTAN CAPITAL & FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. THE LENDER HAD BEEN PROVED TO BE A PARTY OF NO CREDITWO RTHINESS AND WAS AN ENTRY OPERATOR. THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR 2000-01 ON 28.11. 2000 DECLARED NIL INCOME. THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED UNDER SECTION 147 BY NOTICE DATED 23.03.2007 FOR THE REASONS THAT ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED AMOUNT FROM THE ENTRY OPERATO RS OF WHICH CREDITWORTHINESS IS NOT PROVED. ASSESSEE FILED RETURN IN RESPONSE TO NOTIC E U/S 148 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT AT NIL INCOME ON 21.5.2007. 3. WHILE PLEADING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, FOR RE OPENING THE CASE, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER MUST HAVE REASON T O BELIEVE THAT ANY INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE BELIEF FORMED MUST BE OF ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF AND IT CANNOT BE ON THE BASIS OF THE BELIEF OF SOMEONE ELSE. REASSESSM ENT CANNOT BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF A CIRCULAR ISSUED BY DDI. LD. AR ALSO RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS :- (I) SITARAM JINDAL VS. ITO (1972) 84 ITR 162 (CA L.); (II) SHEO NARAYAN JAISWAL VS. ITO (1989) 176 ITR 352 (PAT.); (III) MADANLAL JINDAL VS. ITO (1973) 92 ITR 546 (CAL.). THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT WAS TOWARDS TH E SHARE APPLICATION MONEY. THIS AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FROM THE PROMOTERS DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY AGAINST WHICH SHARES HAVE BEEN ALLOTTED. EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF AFFID AVITS OF THE INDIVIDUALS, COPY OF FORM NO.2 FILED WITH THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES FOR ALLO TMENT OF SHARES, COPY OF SHARE CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY THE COMPANY AND OTHER RELEVA NT DOCUMENTS WERE SUBMITTED. THE ITA NO.1149/DEL./2009 3 STATEMENT OF ONE OF THE DIRECTORS WAS ALSO RECORDED WHO HAS AFFIRMED GIVING THE AMOUNT WITH REGARD TO THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY FOR WHIC H THE COMPANY ULTIMATELY ALLOTTED SHARES. HE PLEADED THAT THE PROMOTERS DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY ASKED PARIVARTAN CAPITAL & FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. AND SOUMYA LUBRICANT S LTD. TO PAY THE AMOUNT TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DIRECTLY. SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR GOEL, ONE OF THE PROMOTERS DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY HAS FILED AN AFFIDAVIT WHERE HE HAS CON FIRMED THE PAYMENT OF THE AMOUNT, HE IS ASSESSED TO INCOME-TAX AND HE HAS GOT THE PERMAN ENT ACCOUNT NUMBER. THE AMOUNT PAID WAS A TOKEN MONEY RECEIVED FOR THE PROPOSED SALE OF PROPERTY BEARING ADDRESS AT 2967, SANT NAGAR, RANI BAGH, DELHI-110 034. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RECEIVED THE ALLOCATION OF SHARES. THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED BY CHEQUE AND DRAW N ON CORPORATION BANK, KAMLA NAGAR BRANCH, DELHI-110 007. HE HAS ALSO STATED IN THE AFFIDAVIT THAT M/S. PARIVARTAN CAPITAL & FINANCIAL SERVICES (P) LTD. FROM WHOM THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED AS A TOKEN MONEY TOWARDS THE PROPOSED SALE WHICH HAS ABANDONED DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1999-00 AND THE AMOUNT WAS FORFEITED BY SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR G OEL. SIMILARLY, SMT. URMILA GOEL ONE OF THE PROMOTERS DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY HAS ALSO RECEIVE THE AMOUNT AGAINST THE PROPOSED SALE OF PROPERTY BEARING NO.B-19, ROHIT KU NJ, DELHI-110034 FROM M/S. SAUMYA LUBRICANTS (P) LTD. THIS AMOUNT WAS ALSO RECEIVED BY CHEQUE DRAWN ON RAMGARHIA COOPERATIVE BANK, PAHARGANJ, DELHI. IN THIS CASE A LSO, M/S. SAUMYA LUBRICANTS (P) LTD. ABANDONED THE DEAL DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1999-0 0 AND THE AMOUNT WAS FORFEITED BY SMT. URMILA GOEL, ONE OF THE SHAREHOLDERS OF THE CO MPANY. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT AFFIDAVITS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED IN THIS REGARD. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND ALSO RELIED ON THE LATEST DECISION OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. NOVA PROMOTERS & FINLEASE (P) LTD. IN ITA NO.342 OF 2001 DATED 15.02.2012. LD. DR ALSO PLEADED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER RECEIVED NOT THE CIR CULAR OF DDIT BUT ACTUAL STATEMENT OF ITA NO.1149/DEL./2009 4 SHRI HARI OM BANSAL WHO MANAGED M/S. PARIVARTAN CAP ITAL & FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. AND SOUMYA LUBRICANTS LTD. ON THE BASIS OF STATEME NT OF HARI OM BANSAL AND OTHER INFORMATION INCLUDING DETAILS OF SUMMARY BANK ACCOU NT WERE MADE AVAILABLE TO ASSESSING OFFICER. ASSESSING OFFICER APPLIED HIS INDEPENDENT MIND ON THESE INFORMATIONS AND THEN SATISFIED HIMSELF AND ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT FOR REASSESSMENT. THE SATISFACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER IS CLEARLY DISCER NIBLE FROM REASONS RECORDED PLACED AT PAGE 10 TO 12 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE ADEQUACY OF R EASONS AND CORRECTNESS OF THE REASONS CANNOT BE VIEWED AT THE TIME OF REOPENING OF THE CA SE. LD. DR PLEADED THAT CIT (A) HAS RIGHTLY UPHELD THE REOPENING VALID. THIS GROUND DE SERVES TO BE DISMISSED. 3.1 THE LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ON MERITS, TH E ASSESSEE HAS NO CASE. AS A RESULT OF INVESTIGATION CARRIED OUT BY THE INVESTIGATION W ING, DELHI, THE COMPANY ASKED M/S. PARIVARTAN CAPITAL & FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. W AS FOUND TO BE NON-GENUINE ENTITY. THIS WAS ENGAGED ONLY IN GIVING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. THIS FACT IS CLEAR FROM THE STATEMENT OF SHRI HARI OM BANSAL RECORDED ON 12.04.2005, WHIC H IS PLACED AT PAGE 13 TO 17 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WHEREIN HARI OM BANSAL HAD ADMITTED THA T HE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES WHOSOEVER COMPANY G IVE THE CASH TO HIM THEN HE DEPOSITS THE CASH IN HIS ACCOUNT AND THEN A CHEQUE/ DRAFT IS ISSUED AGAINST THIS AMOUNT. HE ALSO RECEIVED THE COMMISSION FOR DOING SO. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES, HE HAS MADE MANY C OMPANIES AND WHILE ANSWERING TO QUESTION NO.6 FOR ENUMERATING THE NAME OF THE PERSO NS IN WHOSE NAMES THE BANK ACCOUNT HAS BEEN OPENED AND USED FOR ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES, M/S. PARIVARTAN CAPITAL & FINANCIAL SERVICES (P.) LTD. IS STATED BY HIM AS ONE OF SUCH ENTITIES. HE FURTHER PLEADED THAT BOTH THE SO CALLED SHARE APPLICANTS, I.E., SHRI SUSHIL K UMAR GOEL AND SMT. URMILA GOEL HAS STATED THAT THIS AMOUNT WAS DIRECTLY CREDITED TO TH E ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THE SAME WAS RECEIVED AS ADVANCE TO THE PROPOSED SA LE OF THE PROPERTY IN BOTH THE CASES. ITA NO.1149/DEL./2009 5 THE STATEMENT OF ONE OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS, SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR GOEL, RECORDED AND HE HAS SHOWN HIS INABILITY TO PRODUCE THE PERSON WITH WHOM SALE TRANSACTION OF PROPERTY WAS ENTERED INTO. SHRI GOEL HAS STATED THAT THE DEAL W AS ABANDONED SEVERAL YEARS BACK AND AFTER THAT NO ONE FROM THE COMPANY WITH WHOM TRANSA CTION ENTERED HAS APPROACHED HIM TILL DATE. HE WAS ALSO NOT AWARE ABOUT THE WHEREABOUTS OF THESE PERSONS. IT IS ALSO VERY INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT NONE OF THESE SO-CALLED PU RCHASERS PURSUED TO FINALIZE THE DEAL OR RECOVERY OF THE ADVANCE. IT CLAIMED THAT BOTH THES E PERSONS ABANDONED THE DEAL AND AMOUNT WAS FORFEITED. THESE PERSONS HAVE NEVER APP ROACHED FOR REFUND. INTERESTINGLY THE PERSONS WHO ENTERED INTO SALE TRANSACTION WERE NOT AWARE ABOUT THE WHEREABOUTS OF THESE PERSONS. LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT ALL THESE FACTS SHO W THAT THIS WAS A STORY COOKED BY THE ASSESSEE TO GIVE THE GENUINENESS TO THESE ACCOMMODA TION ENTRIES WHICH HAS BEEN TAKEN FROM THE PERSON WHO HIMSELF HAS ADMITTED TO BE ENGA GED IN THE ACCOMMODATION ENTRY BUSINESS. THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO MERIT IN THE APP EAL OF THE ASSESSEE. LD. DR PLEADED TO DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS ALSO. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES ON THIS ISSUE. IN THIS CASE, THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 DECLARING INCOME AT NIL. NO ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) HAS BEEN MADE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECEIVED THE INFORMATION FROM THE INVESTIGATION WING THAT ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ACCOMMODATION ENTRI ES. THE REASONS RECORDED PLACED AT PAGES 10 TO 12 OF THE PAPER BOOK SHOW THAT ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS APPLIED HIS INDEPENDENT MIND TO THE FACTS ON RECORD ON THE DAY OF REOPENING . THE INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED FROM INVESTIGATION WING REGARDING THE ACCOMMODATION ENTR Y RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT OF ENTRY OPERATOR. THE STATEMENT OF THE ENTRY OPERATOR, SHRI HARI OM BANSAL WAS ALSO BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER WH EREIN HE HAS STATED THAT M/S. PARIVARTAN CAPITAL & FINANCIAL SERVICES (P) LTD. HA S BEEN USED FOR PROVIDING ACCOMMODATING ENTRIES. THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS HAVING SUFFICIENT REASONS TO ITA NO.1149/DEL./2009 6 MAKE A BELIEF THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE HAVE ESCAPED A SSESSMENT AND WAS JUSTIFIED TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT U/S 148 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. KEEP ING THESE FACTS IN VIEW AND CONSIDERING ALL THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE GROUND NO.1 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL WHICH STANDS DISMISSED. 4.1 AS FAR AS THE MERITS OF THE ADDITION MADE U/S 6 8 ARE CONCERNED, WE HELD AS UNDER :- THE FOLLOWING FACTS ARE UNDISPUTED. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 ON 21.05.1999 AS A PRIVATE LIMITED AT THE ADDRESS 475, LAJPAT RAI MARKET, DELHI-110 006. AS PER THE MINUTES OF THE M EETING OF DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HELD ON 29 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1999 AT 11.00 HOURS THERE WERE F OUR DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WHICH INCLUDE SUSHIL KUMAR GOE L, URMILA GOEL, NEERAJ GOEL AND RUCHI GOEL (EVIDENT FROM PAGE 20 OF THE PAPER BOOK) . THE SHARE CAPITAL PRIOR TO THE ALLEGED SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED AS ON 31.3 .2000 WAS ONLY OF RS.4,000/-. THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY SHOWN AS RECEIVED FROM TWO PROMOTERS DIRECTORS, NAMELY, SUSHIL KUMAR GOEL AND URMILA GOEL HAVE NOT BEEN REC EIVED DIRECTLY FROM THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS. HOWEVER, THE SAME HAS BEEN STATED TO HAV E BEEN RECEIVED FROM TWO PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANIES. IN THE CASE OF SUSHIL KUMAR GOE L, THE CHEQUE WAS RECEIVED FROM M/S. PARIVARTAN CAPITAL & FINANCIAL SERVICES (P) LTD. DR AWN FROM ITS ACCOUNT AT CORPORATION BANK, KAMLA NAGAR AND IN THE CASE OF URMILA GOEL TH E AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FORM M/S. SAUMYA LUBRICANTS (P) LTD. DRAWN FROM ITS ACCOUNT A T RAMGARHIA COOPERATIVE BANK, PAHARGANJ, DELHI. IT IS ALSO VERY INTERESTING TO N OTE THAT THESE PERSONS SUSHIL KUMAR GOEL AND URMILA GOEL HAVE STATED THAT THESE AMOUNTS WERE RECEIVED TOWARDS THE ADVANCE/TOKEN MONEY AGAINST THE PROPOSED SALE OF THEIR PROPERTIES . IT IS ALSO INTERESTING TO NOTICE THAT IN BOTH THESE CASES, THE PROPOSED SALES WERE ABANDONED AND THE AMOUNTS WERE FORFEITED IN BOTH THESE CASES. IT IS ALSO TO BE NOTED THAT IN B OTH CASES, THE PERSON WHO CLAIMED TO BE PURCHASER ARE NEVER CONTACTED THESE TWO SHAREHOLDER S TO PURSUE THE DEAL OR TO RECOVER THE ITA NO.1149/DEL./2009 7 ADVANCE. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, WHAT IS CLAIMED B Y ASSESSEE ARE SELF SERVING RECITALS AND ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE TRUTH OF THESE RECITALS. THE ASSESSEE HAS COMPLETELY FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THIS C LAIM OF PROPOSED SALE OF THE PROPERTY BY THE DIRECTORS/SHAREHOLDERS PROMOTERS OF THE COMPA NY. NO EVIDENCE WAS FILED IN SUPPORT OF CLAIM BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THERE IS NO THING ON THE RECORD WHICH COULD JUSTIFY THAT THE CLAIM OF PROPOSED SALE WAS A BONAFIDE CLAI M AND THE AMOUNT WAS REPRESENTING THE FORFEITED AMOUNT. NO WRITTEN AGREEMENT FOR THESE P ROPOSED SALES WERE MADE AVAILABLE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, IT I S DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE THE SELF-SERVING RECITALS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ABOUT THE PROPOSED SA LE TRANSACTIONS WHICH CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN ABANDONED AND AMOUNTS WERE FORFEITED. THE PER SONS TO WHOM SUCH PROPOSED SALE WAS AGREED UPON WERE NEVER PRODUCED. THEREFORE, WH EREABOUTS WERE ALSO NOT PROVIDED. IN VIEW OF THESE, THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY ASSESSEE AT THE FACE OF IT IS UNRELIABLE. THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER THE OBLIGATION TO PROVE THE CREDITWORTHIN ESS, IDENTITY OF THE PERSONS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. NOVA PROMOTERS & FINLEASE (P) LTD., CITED SUPRA, AFTER C ONSIDERING ALL THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE INCLUDING THE CASE OF HON'BLE SUPRE ME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. LOVELY EXPORTS P. LTD. (2008) 216 CTR (SC) 195, CIT VS. DI VINE LEASING & FINANCE LTD (2008) 299 ITR 268, SOPHIA FINANCE (1994) 205 ITR 98 (DE LHI) AND CIT VS. OASIS HOSPITALITIES PRIVATE LTD. (2011) 333 ITR 119, HAS HELD THAT TH E ENTRY OPERATORS AND THE ASSESSEE WERE THE ALLEGED BENEFICIARIES OF THE ACCOMMODATION ENTR IES. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO, IT IS THE ASSESSEE AND THE ENTRY OPERATORS WHO WERE BE NEFICIARIES OF THESE ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. IN THE ASSESSEES CASE, SIMPLY FILING COP IES OF PAN NUMBERS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME OF T HESE PROMOTERS / DIRECTORS / SHAREHOLDERS SHALL NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO DISCHARGE T HE ONUS PUT UNDER SECTION 68 OF INCOME- TAX ACT. THE AMOUNTS WERE RECEIVED FROM THE PERSON S WHOSE WHEREABOUTS ARE NOT KNOWN ITA NO.1149/DEL./2009 8 TO ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE TH E PERSONS FROM WHOSE ACCOUNTS THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN RECEIVED. THE CLAIM OF THE ADVANCE S / TOKEN MONIES CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AGAINST THE PROPOSED SALES BY THESE SHAREH OLDERS IS COMPLETELY UNSUSTAINABLE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS COMPLETELY FAILED TO DI SCHARGE THE OBLIGATION U/S 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE ENTRY OPERATORS. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, WE HAVE NO HESITATION IN SUSTAINING THE ORDE R OF THE CIT (A) AND DISMISS THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES ON THE ISSUE OF PAY MENT OF THE COMMISSION TO THE ENTRY OPERATOR. SHRI HARI OM BANSAL WHO WAS THE KI NGPIN OPERATING ACCOMMODATION ENTRY BUSINESS HAD ADMITTED IN A STATEMENT THAT HE IS REC EIVING 0.25% COMMISSION FOR DOING THIS BUSINESS. THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ACCOMMODATION ENTRY OF RS.10 LACS AND THE CIT (A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF 1% AS A COMMISSION ON THIS ENTRY OF RS.10 LACS. AFTER CONSIDERING BOTH THE SIDES, WE SUSTAIN THE ADDITION UP TO 0.25% OF THE AMOUNT OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRY. THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEES APP EAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 6. GROUND NOS.4 & 5 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND DO NO T REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 9 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2012. SD/- SD/- (I.P. BANSAL) (B.C. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED THE 9 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2012 /TS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A), MEERUT. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.