G.R. PANDYA SHARE BROKING LTD, MUMBAI V. ACIT CC 13, MUMBAI

ITA 537/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3662 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 10-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 22-01-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: DHARMESH SHAH MR BIPIN SHAH
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Accommodation entries
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 234B; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL G BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO.537 /M/2014 (AY: 2006 - 200 7 ) I.T.A. NO.538/M/2014 (AY: 2007 - 2008 ) G.R. PANDYA SHARE BROKING LTD., C/O. SHAH AND COMPANY TAX CONSULTANTS, 201, PRINCESS STREET, KESAR BLDG, FIRST FLOOR, ROOM NO.11, MUMBAI - 02. / VS. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CC - 13, 11 TH FLOOR, R.NO. 1103, OLD CGO BLDG, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI 400 020. ./ PAN : AAACG3748A ( / APPELLANT) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) I.T.A. NO.567 /M/2014 (AY: 2006 - 2007 ) I.T.A. NO.568/M/2014 (AY: 2007 - 2008 ) ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CC - 13, 11 TH FLOOR, R.NO. 1103, OLD CGO BLDG, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI 400 020. / VS. G.R. PANDYA SHARE BROKING LTD., C/O. SHAH AND COMPANY TAX CONSULTANTS, 201, PRINCESS STREET, KESAR BLDG, FIRST FLOOR, ROOM NO.11, MUMBAI - 02. ./ PAN : AAACG3748A ( / APPELLANT) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI DHARMESH SHAH, MR. BIPIN SHAH & ASHWIN KASHINATH / REVENUE BY : SHRI BHUPENDRA KUMAR SINGH, DR / DATE OF HEARING : 17.6.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12 .8 .2016 / O R D E R PER BENCH: THERE ARE FOUR APPEALS UNDER CONSIDERATION INV OLVING THE CROSS APPEALS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006 - 07 AND 2007 - 08. SINCE, THE ISSUES RAISED IN THESE APPEALS ARE INTER - CONNECTED, THEREFORE, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THEY ARE CLUBBED, HEARD COMBINEDLY AND DISPOSED OF IN THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. APPEAL WISE ADJUDICATION IS GIVEN IN THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPHS OF THIS ORDER. 2 I. CROSS APPEALS FOR THE AY 2006 - 07 ITA NO.537/M/2014 (ASSESSEES APPEAL) 2. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 22.01.2014 IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) - 37, MUMBAI DATED 22.11.2013. IN THIS APPEAL, ASSESSEE RAISED THE FOLLOWING CONCISE GROUNDS AND ADDITIONAL GROUNDS WHICH READ AS UNDER: - 1. THE LD CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE AO HAS PASSED THE ORDER WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS THUS ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW. 2. THE LD CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO IS BAD IN LAW AND VOID AB INITIO. 3. THE LD CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES OF RS. 2,60,967/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. THE LD CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN L AW AND IN FACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE AO HAS ERRED IN CONSIDERING THE SUBSEQUENT RETURN OF INCOME OF INCOME OF THE APPELLANT WHICH HAS BEEN FILED BY MR. NARENDRA SHAH WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION. 5 . THE LD CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CONFIRMI NG THE ADDITION OF RS. 42,94,218/ - ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED COMMISSION RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT. 6 . THE LD CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE COMMISSION INCOME HAS ACTUALLY BEEN EARNED BY MR. NARENDRA SHAH AND OUGHT TO BE TAX ED IN HIS HANDS AND NOT IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT. 7. THE LD CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE AO HAS ERRED IN LEVYING INTEREST U/S 234A, 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT. ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE A PPELLANT, THE APPELLANT HAS INADVERTENTLY LEFT OUT THE GROUNDS CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DUE TO OVERSIGHT. WE ARE FILING HEREWITH THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 153C R.W.S 143(3) OF THE ACT. 3. BRIEFLY STATED RELEVANT FACTS OF THESE CASES ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS A SHARE BROKER TILL 2002 . SEBI INITIATED CERTAIN PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM AND THEREFORE, HE STOPPED DOING BROKING JOB. THUS, THE ASSESSEE BECAME A BUSINESS PARTNER WITH SHRI NARENDRA R. SHAH IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES FOR EARNING COMMISSION. THERE WAS SEARCH ACTION U/S 132 OF THE ACT ON SHRI NARENDRA R. SHAH DATED 24.1.2006. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS O N SHRI SHAH, THE SEARCH TEAM LAID THEIR HANDS ON PAY SLIPS INVOLVING ASSESSEE - COMPANY. CONSEQUENTLY, BOTH THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS SHRI SHAH WAS CENTRALIZED WITH SAME ASSESSING OFFICER. AO MADE VARIOUS ADDITIONS IN THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE U /S 153C O F THE ACT . SIMILAR ADDITIONS WERE MADE IN THE HANDS OF SHRI SHAH ON PROTECTIVE BASIS. BEFORE US, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BRIEFLY NARRAT ED THE ABOVE FACTS OF THE CASE RELEVANT TO THE AY 2006 - 07 AND BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO THE ABOVE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE 3 ASSESSEE AND MENTIONED THAT THE DATE OF SEARCH ACTION U/S 132 OF THE ACT WAS 24.1.2006 AND THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THE DOCUMENTS BY THE AO OF THE OTHER PERSON IS 13.12.2006. WITHOUT GOING TO THE VARIOUS OTHER ARGUMENTS, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DEMO NSTRATED THAT THE ASSESSMENT IN THE PRESENT CASE FOR THE AY 2006 - 07 SHOULD HAVE BEEN COMPLETED U/S 153C OF THE ACT AFTER COMPLYING WITH THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT RELATING TO THE RECORDING OF SATISFACTION, ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 153C OF THE ACT ETC, WHEREAS, T HE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE AY 2006 - 07 U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT AND NOT U/S 153C OF THE ACT ON 24.7.2008. THE SAME CONSTITUTES AN INVALID ASSESSMENT AND THE SAME IS REQUIRED TO BE QUASHED IN VIEW OF THE EXPRESS PROVISIONS OF THE ACT VIDE FIRST PRO VISO TO SECTION 153C READ WITH CLAUSE (B) OF SECTION 153A(1) OF THE ACT. IN THIS REGARD, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THE DOCUMENTS FROM THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON IS 13.12.2006 WHICH FALLS IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 07 - 2008. THUS, AS PER THE ASSESSEE THE SIX YEARS REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (B) OF SECTION 153A(1) OF THE ACT STARTS WITH AY 2006 - 07. FOR THIS PROPOSITION HE RELIED ON VARIOUS DECISIONS OF THE ITAT VIZ., THE DECISION OF THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE C ASE OF JASJIT SINGH VS. ACIT VIDE ITA NO.1436/DEL/2012 (AY 2009 - 2010), DATED 5.11.2014 AND ANOTHER DECISION OF THE ITAT, DELHI IN THE CASE OF R.L. ALLIED INDUSTRIES VS. ITO VIDE ITA NOS. 567 & 568/DEL/2011 & 4812 TO 4816/DEL/2012 (AYS 2000 - 01 TO 2002 - 03), DATED 28.11.2014 WHICH ARE RELEVANT FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THE DOCUMENTS CONSTITUTES DATE OF SEARCH FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (B) OF SECTION 153A(1) OF THE ACT. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD DR FOR THE REVENUE RELIED HEAVILY ON THE DECISION OF THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DIVYA JEYRAM MEGHANI VS. DCIT (ITA NO.1134/PN/2012. REPLYING TO THE SAID DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL (SUPRA), LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DEMONSTRATED THAT IN THAT CASE THERE IS NO QUESTION OF HANDING OVER OF THE DOCUMENTS TO THE OTHER PERSON AS IT WAS A CASE OF 153A OF THE ACT WHERE AN AUTHORIZATION OF WARRANT WAS ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE SAID PERSON. IN THAT CASE, THE TRIBUNAL APPROVED THE MAKING OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S 153A OF THE ACT FOR THE AY 2008 - 2009 CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE DATE OF SEARCH WAS 20.4.2007 (AY 2008 - 2009). 4 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND WE HAVE A LSO PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS THE FACTS APPLICABLE TO THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION. TO START WITH WE HAVE EXAMINED THE PROVISIONS OF FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 153C AND THE PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE (B) OF SECTION 153A(1) OF THE AC T AND THE SAME READ AS UNDER: - FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 153C OF THE ACT [ PROVIDED THAT IN CASE OF SUCH OTHER PERSON, THE REFERENCE TO THE DATE OF INITIATION OF THE SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 OR MAKING OF REQUISITION UNDER SECTION 132A IN THE SECOND PROVISO TO [SUB - SECTION (1) OF] SECTION 153A SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS REFERENCE TO THE DATE OF RECEIVING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURI SDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON :] CLAUSE (B) OF SECTION 153A(1) OF THE ACT. ASSESS OR REASSESS THE TOTAL INCOME OF SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR RELEVANT TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH SUCH SEARCH IS CONDUCTED OR REQUISITION IS MADE : 6. FROM THE ABOVE , IT IS EXPRESSLY MENTIONED THE REFERENCE TO THE DATE OF SEARCH IN CASES OF OTHER PERSON WHERE WARRANT OF AUTHORIZATION WAS NOT ISSUED, THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THE DOCUMENTS BY THE AO OF THE OTHER PERSON CONSTITUTES THE DATE OF SEARCH FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS FOR ASSESSING / REASSESSING U/S 153C OF THE ACT. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THE DOCUMENTS IS 13.12.2006, WHICH RELATES TO THE AY 2007 - 2008. IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE (B) OF SECTION 153A(1) OF THE ACT, THE SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR RELEVANT TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH SUCH SEARCH IS CONDUCTE D . THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN WHICH THE DOCUMENTS ARE RECEIVED BY THE AO OF THE OTHER PERSON IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE MADE U/S 153C OF THE ACT. THIS VIEW IS REPEATEDLY SUPPORTED BY THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL VIZ THE DECISION OF THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF JASJIT SINGH VS. ACIT (SUPRA) AND ANOTHER DECISION OF THE ITAT, DELHI IN THE CASE OF R.L. ALLIED INDUSTRIES VS. (SUPRA). FOR THE SAKE OF COMPLETENESS OF THIS ORDER, THE RELEVANT CONCLUSIONS OF THE SAID TRIBUNALS DECISION IN THE CASE OF R.L. ALLIED INDUSTRIES (SUPRA) ARE EXTRACTED AS UNDER: - ASSESSEES AO HAVING RECEIVED THE SEIZED MA TERIAL ON 12 TH MARCH, 2009, IE IN PREVIOUS YEAR 2008 - 2009 RELEVANT TO ASST. YR. 2009 - 10, ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 153C COULD BE MADE FOR PRECEDING SIX YEARS 2003 - 2004 TO 2008 - 2009 AND THEREFORE, ISSUE OF 5 NOTICE U/S 153C FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 20 0 1 - 02 AND 200 2 - 03 WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION; SAID NOTICE AND THE ASSESSMENT MADE IN PURSUANCE THEREOF ARE QUASHED. 7. IN THE PRESENT CASE, UNDISPUTEDLY, THE DOCUMENTS ARE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE OTHER PERSON ON 13.12.2006 WHICH FALLS IN THE AY 2007 - 08 AND THEREFORE, IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR MENTIONED IN CLAUSE (B) OF SECTION 153A(1) OF THE ACT IS AY 2006 - 07. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE SETTLED LEGAL POSITION OF THE ISSUE AND WITHOUT GOING INTO THE OTHER ARGUMENTS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WE ARE OF THE OPINION, THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE AY 2006 - 07 , WHICH WAS MADE U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, IS REQUIRED TO BE QUASHED ON TECHNICAL GROUNDS. ACCORDINGLY, THE LEGAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. CONSIDERING O UR DECISION ON THE LEGAL GROUND, THE ADJUDICATION OF OTHER GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BECOMES AN ACADEMIC AND THEY ARE DISMISSED AS ACADEMIC. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ITA NO.567/M/2014 (AY 200607) (BY REVENUE) 9. THIS APPE AL FILED BY THE REVENUE ON 23.1.2014 IS AGAINST THE SAID ORDER OF THE CIT (A) - 37, MUMBAI DATED 22.11.2013. 10. CONSIDERING OUR DECISION ON THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR THE AY 2006 - 07, WHEREIN WE HAVE ALLOWED THE APPEAL ON TECHNICAL / LEGAL GROUNDS, WE ARE O F THE OPINION, THE ADJUDICATION OF THE PRESENT APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE BECOMES INFRUCTUOUS. ACCORDINGLY, GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. II. CROSS APPEALS FOR THE AY 2007 - 08 ITA NO. 568/M/2014 (BY ASSESSEE) ITA NO.538/M/2014 (BY REVENUE) 12. BOTH THESE CROSS APPEALS ARE FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) - 37, MUMBAI DATED 22.11.2013 FOR THE AY 2007 - 2008. 13. BRIEFLY STATED RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SHARE TRADING AND FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME AT RS. NIL ON 22.4.2008 FOR THE AY 2007 - 08. THERE WAS A SEARCH ACTION U/S 132 OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF SHRI NARENDRA SHAH ON 24.1.2006. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, CERTAIN 6 BACKGROUND FACTS INVOLVING THE ASSESSEE WERE EXAMINED AND FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCOMMODATING CERTAIN ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES INVOLVING SHARE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. IT WAS ON RECORD THAT TH E SAID TRANSACTIONS WERE ACCOMMODATED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR EARNING COMMISSION INCOME. IT IS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE RATE OF COMMISSION EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE IS @ 2% IN CASE OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AND THE TURNOVER IN THIS REGARD WORKS OUT TO RS. 1,10,81,116/ - AND THE RATE OF COMMISSION FOR ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES INVOLVING SUBSEQUENT TRANSACTION IS @ 0.5% AND THE TRANSACTIONAL VALUE IN THIS REGARD IS AROUND RS. 2.22 CRS. ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXPENSES APPLYING THE FLAT RATE OF 20% OF THE GROSS COMM ISSION FOR UNDERTAKING SUCH ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. IN THE ASSESSMENT, THE ABOVE BENEFICIAL RATES OF COMMISSION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE REJECTED BY THE AO AS DONE IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS. AO UNIFORMLY ADOPTED THE FLAT RATE OF 5% OF THE ENTIRE ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES BUSINESS. AGGRIEVED WITH THE SAME ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 14. BEFORE THE CIT (A), ASSESSEE FILED VARIOUS DOCUMENTS ADOPTING THE UNIFORM RATE OF 5% AND FOR NOT GRANTING ANY EXPENDITURE FOR DOI NG THE SAID BUSINESS OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, CIT (A) EXAMINED THE CLAIMS OF THE ASSESSEE AND FINALLY, PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. WHILE COMING TO SUCH DECISION, CIT (A) HELD THAT ESTIMAT ING TH E COMMISSION ADOPTING THE RATE OF 3% WOULD FAIR AND REASONABLE. RELEVANT LINES FROM PARA 6.4.19 READ WITH 14.3.2 OF CIT (A)S OR DER ARE RELEVANT IN THIS REGARD. 15. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE CIT (A), REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE R ELIEF GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL REGARDING DETERMINING THE COMMISSION @ 3% INSTEAD OF 0.5% AS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE. 16. BEFORE US, LD REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 17. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES IN GENERAL AND THE RELEVANT PARA 6.4.19 IN PARTICULAR, WHICH ARE EXTRACTED ABOVE, WE FIND, BEFORE COMING TO A CONCLUSION ON THE ISSUES OF RATE OF COMMISSION AS WELL AS ALLOWABILITY OF EXPENSES, THE CIT (A) 7 DISCUSSED THESE MATTERS AT LENGTH BEFORE DECIDING THE BOTH THE ISSUES IE (I) COMMISSION INCOME AS WELL A S THE ALLOWABILITY OF EXPENSES AND THE CONTENTS OF PARA 6.4.19 OF THE CIT (A)S ORDER ARE RELEVANT IN THIS REGARD. FOR THE SA KE OF COMPLETENESS RELEVANT LINES FROM THE SAID PARA ARE EXTRACTED AS UNDER: 6.4.19.......CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES, VARIOUS EVIDENCES BROUGHT ON RECORD, THE SEIZED MATERIAL WHICH CONTAIN THE RATE OF COMMISSION CHARGED BY THE APPELLANT, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT IT WOULD BE FAIR AND REASONABLE TO ADOPT THE RATE OF COMMISSION @3% OF THE AMOUNT OF CHEQUES ISSUED OR BANK DEPOSITS WHICHEVER IS HIGHER, FOR THE PURPOSE OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AND OTHER ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES PROVIDED BY THE APPELLANT. REGARDING THE CLAIM OF EXPENSES, I FIND THAT THE EXPENSES WERE CLAIMED ON AD - HOC BASIS AND PERCENTAGE OF THE GROSS COMMISSION. THE GROSS COMMISSION WAS ESTIMATED AT THE TIME OF FILING THE RETURN ON THE BASIS OF THE AVAILABLE BANK STATEMENTS...... REGARDING THE ALLOWABILITY OF EXPENSES, CIT (A) HELD AS UNDER: - 6.4.19......I HAVE NO OTHER OPTION BUT TO REJECT THIS C LAIM OF 50% OF EXPENSES. HAVING REGARD TO FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, IT WOULD BE FAIR AND REASONABLE IF THE CLAIM OF EXPENSES @20% OF GROSS COMMISSION FINALLY DETERMINED IS UPHELD. THUS, 20% OF GROSS COMMISSION WHICH IS UPHELD IN THIS ORDER @ 3%) IN THIS C ASE ARE CONSIDERED AS ALLOWABLE EXPENSES..... 18. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE CIT (A) IS FAIR AND REASONABLE AND IT DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. ACCORDINGLY, ALL THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE REVENUE IN TH EIR RESPECTIVE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. 19. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOU NCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 2 T H AUGUST, 2016. S D / - S D / - ( PAWAN SINGH ) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; 1 2 .08.2016 . . ./ OKK , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 8 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE . //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI