DCIT CEN CIR 8(1), MUMBAI V. CHAITALI SALES AGENCY P.LTD, THANE

ITA 4909/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1681 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 25-07-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S PADMAJA LD DR
• Assessee Lawyers: AJAY R SINGHLD
• Keywords: Accommodation entries

Judgement Text

ITA NO.4909/MUM/2016 CHAITALI SALES AGENCY PRIVATE LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEAR-2010-11 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL F BENCH, MUMBAI , BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM I.T.A. NO.4909/MUM/2016 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1) ROOM NO.656, 6 TH FLOOR AAYKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD MUMBAI-400 020 VS. CHAITALI SALES AGENCY PRIVATE LIMITED B-1, 34, MAHAVIR NAGAR MANPADA ROAD DOMBIVALI(E) THANE ! ' PAN/GIR NO. AACCC-7679-N ( !# APPELLANT ) : ( $%!# RESPONDENT ) A SSESSEE BY : AJAY R. SINGH, LD. AR RE VENUE BY : S. PADMAJA, LD. DR & DATE OF HEARING : 24/07/2018 '() / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05/09/2018 O R D E R PER MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) 1. AFORESAID APPEAL BY REVENUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR [AY] 2010-11 CONTEST THE COMMON ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-50 [CIT(A)], MUMBAI DATED 31/03/2016 BY R AISING THE FOLLOWING SOLE GROUND OF APPEAL: - ITA NO.4909/MUM/2016 CHAITALI SALES AGENCY PRIVATE LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEAR-2010-11 2 ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN REDUCING THE ESTIMATION OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, ON ACCOUNT OF PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES FROM 4% OF THE AGGREGATE VALU E OF THE ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES PROVIDED TO 0.15% OF THE AGGREGATE VALUE OF THE ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES PROVIDED BY FAILING TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ASSESSEE , WHEN ACCORDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO, FAILED IN PROVIDING SUFFICIENT DETAILS ABOUT THE MARGINS IT EARNED ON PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), O N THE ABOVE GROUNDS BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. THE ASSESSMENT FOR IMPUGNED AY WAS FRAMED BY LD. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-44, MUMB AI [AO] U/S. 144/142(1) READ WITH SECTION 153C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 ON 28/02/2013 WHEREIN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS B EEN ASSESSED AT RS.157.88 LACS. 2. PURSUANT TO SEARCH OPERATIONS ON 04/02/2011 IN T HE CASE OF M/S JIK INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED AND ITS ASSOCIATES, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE PROVIDED ACCOMMODATION SALES BILL TO THE A FORESAID ENTITY. CONSEQUENTLY, NOTICE U/S 153C WAS ISSUED TO THE ISS UE WHICH WAS FOLLOWED BY NOTICES U/S 142(1). HOWEVER, THE ASSESS EE NEITHER FILED RETURN OF INCOME NOR PROVIDED THE REQUISITE DOCUMEN TS AS CALLED FOR BY LD. AO. RESULTANTLY, THE COMMISSION INCOME OF THE A SSESSEE WAS ESTIMATED @4% ON AGGREGATE RECEIPTS REFLECTED IN TH E BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, THE DETAILS OF WHICH HAS BEEN EXTRACT ED AT PARA-11 OF THE QUANTUM ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE SAME RESULTED INTO IM PUGNED ADDITIONS OF RS.157.88 LACS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CONTESTED THE SAME WITH PARTIAL SUCCESS BEFORE LD. CIT(A) VIDE COMMON ORDER DATED 31/03/201 6 WHEREIN THE ESTIMATED RATE OF 4% WAS REDUCED TO 0.15%. AGGRIEVE D, THE REVENUE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA NO.4909/MUM/2016 CHAITALI SALES AGENCY PRIVATE LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEAR-2010-11 3 4. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR ASSESSEE [ AR], SHRI AJAY R.SINGH, DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT THE ORDER OF FI RST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WAS COMMON ORDER FOR AYS 2009-10 TO 2011- 12 AND THE REVENUE, IN SIMILAR MANNER, CONTESTED THE STAND OF LD. CIT(A) FOR AYS 2009-10 & 2011-12 WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS BEFORE THIS T RIBUNAL VIDE ITA NO. 4908 & 4910/MUM/2016 DATED 17/05/2017, A COPY O F WHICH HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD. PER CONTRA, LD. CIT DR, MS. S.PADMAJA, SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONS HAD NOT ATTAINED THE F INALITY YET. 5. UPON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION, WE FIND THAT A VIEW HAS ALREADY BEEN TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR AY 2009-10 & 2011-12 WHER EIN THE STAND OF LD. CIT(A) HAS BEEN UPHELD. THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS COMMO N ORDER FOR ALL THE THREE AYS. THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE DISMIS S THE REVENUES APPEAL. 6. RESULTANTLY, THE REVENUES APPEAL STAND DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05 TH SEPTEMBER, 2018 SD/- SD/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (M ANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *& MUMBAI; DATED : 05.09.2018 SR.PS:-THIRUMALESH ! COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. !# / THE APPELLANT 2. $%!# / THE RESPONDENT 3. / THE CIT(A) 4. / CIT CONCERNED 5. + ,$ - -) *& / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. , ./0 & GUARD FILE ' / BY ORDER, # '$% (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) *& / ITAT, MUMBAI