SARVESH MERCANTILE PVT. LTD., MUMBAI V. DCIT,CC 2(1), MUMBAI

ITA 7162/MUM/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2558 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-07-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 19-11-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Rejection of books of accounts; Business income; Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence; Accommodation entries; Retraction; Set aside; Bogus
• Section: 147; 68; 133A; 133(6); 20

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA No. 4634/MUM/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., 2 nd floor, Johari Mansion, 259, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai-400 002. Vs. Dy. CIT Central Circle-2(4), Mumbai. PAN No. AAICS 1651 C Appellant Respondent ITA No. 7163/MUM/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 & ITA No. 7162/MUM/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., 2 nd floor, Johri Mansion, 259, Kalbadevi Road, Kalbadevi, Mumbai-400 002. Vs. DCIT CC-2(1), 9 th floor, New Pratiksha Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. PAN No. AAICS 1651 C Appellant Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Mrs. Neelam Shukla, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 15/06/2022 Date of pronouncement : 27/07/2022 PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM These three appeals by the assessee are directed against three separate orders dated 26/08/2019, 20/06/2018 and 26/08/2019 passed by the Ld. Mumbai [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A) 2014-15 and 2015-16 respectively. As common grounds permeating from the same set of the facts have been raised in these appeals, therefore, these appeals were heard together and dispose way of this consolidated order for convenience and avoid of facts. Despite notifying neither anyone appeared nor any adjournment application was filed on behalf of the assessee. On earlier occasions i.e. 24.01.2022, 21.02.2022 & attended and matter was adjourned on written request filed. Further, on 24.05.2022, the Authorized Representative of the assessee was present and on Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM These three appeals by the assessee are directed against three separate orders dated 26/08/2019, 20/06/2018 and 26/08/2019 Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment years 2013 16 respectively. As common grounds permeating from the same set of the facts have been raised in these appeals, therefore, these appeals were heard together and dispose way of this consolidated order for convenience and avoid Despite notifying neither anyone appeared nor any adjournment application was filed on behalf of the assessee. On earlier occasions i.e. 24.01.2022, 21.02.2022 & 19.05.2022 also none attended and matter was adjourned on written request filed. Further, on 24.05.2022, the Authorized Representative of the assessee was present and on whose request, the matter was posted Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos. 7163 & 7162/M/2019 2 These three appeals by the assessee are directed against three separate orders dated 26/08/2019, 20/06/2018 and 26/08/2019 tax(Appeals)-48, ] for assessment years 2013-14, 16 respectively. As common grounds permeating from the same set of the facts have been raised in these appeals, therefore, these appeals were heard together and disposed off by way of this consolidated order for convenience and avoid repetition Despite notifying neither anyone appeared nor any adjournment application was filed on behalf of the assessee. On 19.05.2022 also none attended and matter was adjourned on written request filed. Further, on 24.05.2022, the Authorized Representative of the request, the matter was posted on 13.06.2022. On 13.06.2022 also none attended, matter was adjourned to 15.06.2022. But still no compliance was made. In the circumstances, we were of the opinion that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Thus same was heard ex-parte qua the assessee, after heari DR and taking into consideration written submission of the assessee available on record. ITA No. 7163/MUM/2019 Assessment Year: 2013 2. We first take the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013 grounds raised in assessment under: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made by Ld. AO estimating business income at of account. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made by the Ld. AO of ₹ 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not allowing set off of losses to be carried forward. Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. on 13.06.2022. On 13.06.2022 also none attended, and therefore, the matter was adjourned to 15.06.2022. But still no compliance was made. In the circumstances, we were of the opinion that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Thus same was qua the assessee, after hearing arguments of the Ld. DR and taking into consideration written submission of the assessee ITA No. 7163/MUM/2019 2013-14 We first take the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013 grounds raised in assessment year 2013-14 are reproduced as The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made by Ld. AO estimating business income at ₹68,94,265/- rejecting the books of account. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made by the Ld. ₹235,00,000/- as cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not allowing set off of losses to be carried forward. Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos. 7163 & 7162/M/2019 3 and therefore, the matter was adjourned to 15.06.2022. But still no compliance was made. In the circumstances, we were of the opinion that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Thus same was ng arguments of the Ld. DR and taking into consideration written submission of the assessee We first take the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14. The 14 are reproduced as The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made by Ld. AO rejecting the books The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made by the Ld. as cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not allowing set off of losses to be 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income for the year under consideration on 27/09/2013 declaring Nil income for carry forward. 3.1 In the case of the assessee a survey action under section 133A of the Income Tax Act the Investigation Wing on19.03.2015 alongwith ‘Luxora’ group. During the course of the survey director of the company recorded and he was asked to furnish details of all purchase and sales transactions with entities. He admitted that all the transactions with Group’ were without taking or giving any physical delivery of goods or services. He further stated that such accommodation entries were also provided to M/s Mirah Group Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. stated facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income for the year under consideration on 27/09/2013 income, claiming loss of current year of In the case of the assessee a survey action under section 133A Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) was carried out by Investigation Wing of the Income-tax Department 19.03.2015 alongwith search action at the premises of the During the course of the survey, statement of the director of the company ‘Sh Kirtikumar Tarachand Doshi was asked to furnish details of all purchase and sales transactions with ‘Mirah Dekor P. Ltd.’ and other admitted that all the transactions with were without taking or giving any physical delivery of goods rvices. He further stated that such accommodation entries were also provided to M/s Mirah Group, through other concerns Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos. 7163 & 7162/M/2019 4 stated facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income for the year under consideration on 27/09/2013 claiming loss of current year of ₹10,57,574/- In the case of the assessee a survey action under section 133A was carried out by ax Department Mumbai search action at the premises of the statement of the Kirtikumar Tarachand Doshi’ was was asked to furnish details of all purchase and and other ‘Mirah Group’ admitted that all the transactions with ‘M/s Mirah were without taking or giving any physical delivery of goods rvices. He further stated that such accommodation entries were through other concerns controlled and operated by him such as M/s Symcom, M/s Ecospace etc. During survey action Doshi was also asked regarding unsecured loans entries recorded in the books of accounts of the assessee company. 3.2 Based on the information received of survey action from the Investigation Wing, Mumbai, the assessment after recording reasons to believe that income escape assessment. In the assessment completed under section 147 of the Act on 20/12/2017, the Firstly, the addition was made for earning commission income ₹68,94,265/- from providing accommodation entries, which was estimated at the rate of the 5% on sales recorded in books of accounts of ₹13,78,85, respect of loans recorded in books of accounts from four parties namely, M/s Karishma diamonds private limited ( M/s Parshwnath Gems P. Ltd. ( Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. controlled and operated by him such as M/s Symcom, M/s Ecospace survey action, the director Sh. Kiritkumar Tarachand as also asked regarding unsecured loans entries recorded in the books of accounts of the assessee company. Based on the information received of survey action from the , Mumbai, the Assessing Officer nt after recording reasons to believe that income escape assessment. In the assessment completed under section 147 of the on 20/12/2017, the Assessing Officer made t Firstly, the addition was made for earning commission income from providing accommodation entries, which was at the rate of the 5% on sales recorded in books of 13,78,85,318/-. Secondly, the addition was made in respect of loans recorded in books of accounts from four parties shma diamonds private limited ( M/s Parshwnath Gems P. Ltd. (₹35,00,000/-) Marine Gems P Ltd Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos. 7163 & 7162/M/2019 5 controlled and operated by him such as M/s Symcom, M/s Ecospace Sh. Kiritkumar Tarachand as also asked regarding unsecured loans from certain entries recorded in the books of accounts of the assessee company. Based on the information received of survey action from the Assessing Officer reopened the nt after recording reasons to believe that income escaped assessment. In the assessment completed under section 147 of the made two additions. Firstly, the addition was made for earning commission income of from providing accommodation entries, which was at the rate of the 5% on sales recorded in books of Secondly, the addition was made in respect of loans recorded in books of accounts from four parties shma diamonds private limited (₹25,00,000/-); ) Marine Gems P Ltd (₹1,50,00,000/-) M/s Keshria holding the same as unexplained cash credit in terms of section 68 of the Act. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not press ground challenging reopening of the assessment and therefore same was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the grounds of the assessee. assessee is in appeal before the reproduced above. 4. Ground No. 1 of the appeal accounts and addition of 5. The Assessing Officer bills vouchers etc. for verification Sh Kirtikumar Tarachand Doshi that purchase and sale transaction with M/s Mirah décor Group were without physical delivery entry transactions. In view of tho Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. ) M/s Keshria Diamonds P. Ltd. holding the same as unexplained cash credit in terms of section 68 . Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not press ground challenging reopening of the assessment and therefore same was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A). But on merit of the addition also, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the grounds of the assessee. n appeal before the Tribunal raising the ground as of the appeal relates to rejection of books of accounts and addition of ₹68,94,265/- to the gross profit. Assessing Officer observed that assessee failed to produce hers etc. for verification. He further noted that Kirtikumar Tarachand Doshi stated during survey proceedings that purchase and sale transaction with M/s Mirah décor Group sical delivery and in the nature of accommodation transactions. In view of those facts, the Assessing Officer Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos. 7163 & 7162/M/2019 6 (₹25,00,000/-), holding the same as unexplained cash credit in terms of section 68 . Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not press ground challenging reopening of the assessment and therefore same was n merit of the addition also, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the grounds of the assessee. Aggrieved, the raising the ground as relates to rejection of books of to the gross profit. observed that assessee failed to produce . He further noted that the Director during survey proceedings that purchase and sale transaction with M/s Mirah décor Group and in the nature of accommodation the Assessing Officer rejected the books of accounts and estimated addition at the rate of the 5% on sales of ₹68,94,265/-. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition holding that profit embedded in bogus transactions in the form of brokerage/commission was over and above the normal profit declared by the assessee. 6. Before us in written submission filed, assessee has submitted that during the year there was no transaction with ‘Mirah Group Limited and therefore books of accounts merely on the reason that said books were not produced before the submitted that the assessee may be provided one more opportunity to produce books of accounts for verifying that there was no transaction with M/s Mirah Group and issue in dispute restored to the file of the Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. rejected the books of accounts and estimated addition at the rate of the 5% on sales of ₹13,78,85,318/- which was worked out to . The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition holding that profit embedded in bogus transactions in the form of brokerage/commission was over and above the normal profit declared by the assessee. in written submission filed, the Ld. assessee has submitted that during the year there was no Mirah Group’ including M/s Mirah décor and therefore lower authorities are not justified in rejecting books of accounts merely on the reason that said books were not produced before the Assessing Officer. Accordingly submitted that the assessee may be provided one more opportunity to produce books of accounts for verifying that there was no transaction with M/s Mirah Group and issue in dispute restored to the file of the Ld. Assessing Officer. Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos. 7163 & 7162/M/2019 7 rejected the books of accounts and estimated addition at the rate of which was worked out to . The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition holding that profit embedded in bogus transactions in the form of brokerage/commission was over and above the normal profit Ld. counsel of the assessee has submitted that during the year there was no including M/s Mirah décor Private authorities are not justified in rejecting books of accounts merely on the reason that said books of accounts . Accordingly, he submitted that the assessee may be provided one more opportunity to produce books of accounts for verifying that there was no transaction with M/s Mirah Group and issue in dispute might be 6.1 Without prejudice to the objection to th account, he further submitted that in assessment year 2014 assessment order of which was framed earlier to the present assessment order, the addition made at the rate of two percent of the sales, whereas in the present assessment year addition has been made at arbitrary and without reference to past records. He further submitted that assessee has already shown a gross profit of ₹1,47,12,015/-, which is in excess of 5% and therefore making further addition estimating gross profit rate of 5%, amounts to double taxation and hence also the addition need to be deleted. 7. The Ld. DR on the other hand books of accounts, bills and vouchers and other documents to support the book results, the sustaining the addition. Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. Without prejudice to the objection to the rejection of books of e further submitted that in assessment year 2014 assessment order of which was framed earlier to the present ssessment order, the addition for brokerage/commission two percent of the sales, whereas in the present assessment year addition has been made at the rate of without reference to past records. He further ubmitted that assessee has already shown a gross profit of , which is in excess of 5% and therefore making further addition estimating gross profit rate of 5%, amounts to double taxation and hence also the addition need to be deleted. on the other hand submitted that in t , bills and vouchers and other documents to support the book results, the lower authorities are justified in sustaining the addition. Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos. 7163 & 7162/M/2019 8 e rejection of books of e further submitted that in assessment year 2014-15, the assessment order of which was framed earlier to the present for brokerage/commission was two percent of the sales, whereas in the present the rate of 5%, which is without reference to past records. He further ubmitted that assessee has already shown a gross profit of , which is in excess of 5% and therefore making further addition estimating gross profit rate of 5%, amounts to double taxation and hence also the addition need to be deleted. submitted that in the absence of , bills and vouchers and other documents to authorities are justified in 8. We have heard submission of the dispute and perused the relevant material on record written submission on behalf of the assessee. of the assessee have been rejected mainly in absence of books of accounts, bills vouchers et and on the allegation of accommodation entry transactions carried out with M/s Mirah Décor group entities. Before us submitted that during the year under consideration there was no transaction with M/s Mirah Group enti importance, has not been verified by the absence of books of accounts and by the assessee. Now before us has expressed willingness to produ vouchers etc. for verification by the facts and circumstances above and in the interest of the substantial justice, we feel it appropriate to restore the issue Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. We have heard submission of the Ld. DR on dispute and perused the relevant material on record written submission on behalf of the assessee. The books of accounts of the assessee have been rejected mainly in absence of books of accounts, bills vouchers etc. produced before the Assessing Officer and on the allegation of accommodation entry transactions carried out with M/s Mirah Décor group entities. Before us, the assessee has submitted that during the year under consideration there was no transaction with M/s Mirah Group entities. This fact has not been verified by the Assessing Officer absence of books of accounts and bills and vouchers see. Now before us, in written submissions, has expressed willingness to produce books of accounts, bills for verification by the Assessing Officer facts and circumstances above and in the interest of the substantial ppropriate to restore the issue-in Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos. 7163 & 7162/M/2019 9 Ld. DR on the issue-in- dispute and perused the relevant material on record including The books of accounts of the assessee have been rejected mainly in absence of books of Assessing Officer and on the allegation of accommodation entry transactions carried the assessee has submitted that during the year under consideration there was no ties. This fact of vital Assessing Officer in bills and vouchers etc. produced in written submissions, the assessee ce books of accounts, bills Assessing Officer. In view of the facts and circumstances above and in the interest of the substantial in-dispute to the file of the Assessing Officer of the appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 9. The ground No. ₹2,35,00,000/- in respect of loans, which have been held as cash credit under section 68 of the 10. The Assessing Officer from M/s Karishma diamonds private limited ₹35,00,000/- from M/s Parasnath “Paraswnath”), ₹1,50,00, Limited (in short Marine) Diamonds Private Limited during survey proceedings, the di Kirtikumar Doshi was asked loan transactions but the assessee failed to substantiate and provide any details of the directors of those companies or any other contact of those persons. Sh Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. ssing Officer for deciding afresh. The ground No. one of the appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. The ground No. 2 of the appeal relates to addition of in respect of loans, which have been held as cash tion 68 of the Act. Assessing Officer observed loans received of from M/s Karishma diamonds private limited (in short “Karishma”) from M/s Parasnath Gems private limited 1,50,00,000/- from M/s Marine in short Marine) and ₹25,00,000/- from M/s Keshria Diamonds Private Limited (in short “Keshriya”). He also noted that during survey proceedings, the director of the assessee company Kirtikumar Doshi was asked to justify the nature and source of those loan transactions but the assessee failed to substantiate and provide any details of the directors of those companies or any other contact of those persons. Sh Kirtikumar stated that he did not remember Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos. 7163 & 7162/M/2019 10 fresh. The ground No. one of the appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. of the appeal relates to addition of in respect of loans, which have been held as cash observed loans received of ₹25,00,000/- (in short “Karishma”), private limited (in short from M/s Marine Gems Private from M/s Keshria . He also noted that rector of the assessee company, Sh to justify the nature and source of those loan transactions but the assessee failed to substantiate and provide any details of the directors of those companies or any other contact Kirtikumar stated that he did not remember either the name of the directors or contact person from whom the loans were received and he was also not aware about the business activity of those parties from the above observations, the section 133(6) to the parties. affirming the giving of loans to the assessee, Officer was not satisfied with the creditworthiness of those parties. 10.1 The Ld. Assessing Officer Karishma Diamonds Private Limited Private Limited, has referred to the statement of Sh Gautam Bhanwarlal Jain, wherein he in his statement recorded under section 131 of the Act stated that these two entities Parasnath were controlled and operated by him and the entries recorded in their books of accounts are all bogus entries and no business activity was carried by tho from M/s Marine, the Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. name of the directors or contact person from whom the received and he was also not aware about the business activity of those parties from whom loans were received. In view of the above observations, the Assessing Officer issued notice under to the parties. In response, the parties file giving of loans to the assessee, however, the was not satisfied with the creditworthiness of those parties. Assessing Officer in respect of the loans from M/s Diamonds Private Limited and M/s Paraswnath , has referred to the statement of Sh Gautam Jain, wherein he in his statement recorded under section stated that these two entities i.e. M/s Karishma & M/s were controlled and operated by him and the entries books of accounts are all bogus entries and no ness activity was carried by those two entities. , the Assessing Officer has referred to the Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos. 7163 & 7162/M/2019 11 name of the directors or contact person from whom the received and he was also not aware about the business received. In view of issued notice under parties filed replies however, the Assessing was not satisfied with the creditworthiness of those parties. e loans from M/s and M/s Paraswnath Gems , has referred to the statement of Sh Gautam Jain, wherein he in his statement recorded under section i.e. M/s Karishma & M/s were controlled and operated by him and the entries books of accounts are all bogus entries and no Regarding loan has referred to the statement of the director admitted that the entity by him and used for providing accommodation entries. I loan from ‘M/s Kesharia of director Sh Vijay Narendra Kothari entity was controlled providing accommodation entry. 10.2 In view of above view that directors and the persons who controlled the companies, have admitted the fact that no real activity was conducted by those companies and they were in the business of providing accommodation entries only. The that director of the assessee also admitted that no real activity was carried out by the assessee company and all prices of goods were decided as per the convenience of the other party with whom the assessee was transacted. Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. director ‘Sh Pramod Kumar Ranka admitted that the entity ‘M/s Marine’ was controlled and operated by him and used for providing accommodation entries. I Kesharia’, the Assessing Officer referred to statement of director Sh Vijay Narendra Kothari, wherein he also admitted controlled and operated by him and was used for accommodation entry. above statements, the Assessing Officer view that directors and the persons who controlled the companies, have admitted the fact that no real activity was conducted by those companies and they were in the business of providing accommodation entries only. The Assessing Officer that director of the assessee also admitted that no real activity was carried out by the assessee company and all prices of goods were decided as per the convenience of the other party with whom the assessee was transacted. Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos. 7163 & 7162/M/2019 12 Sh Pramod Kumar Ranka’, wherein he was controlled and operated by him and used for providing accommodation entries. In respect of referred to statement wherein he also admitted that operated by him and was used for Assessing Officer was of the view that directors and the persons who controlled the companies, have admitted the fact that no real activity was conducted by those companies and they were in the business of providing Assessing Officer also observed that director of the assessee also admitted that no real activity was carried out by the assessee company and all prices of goods were decided as per the convenience of the other party with whom the 10.3 The Assessing Office Director of assessee- those companies except cheque and interest at the rate of 11% was paid. Officer relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kachwala Gems wherein it is held that payment by account payee cheque is not sufficient to establish the genuineness of the purchases. He further referred to of the decision of the Hon’ble CIT Vs Prashant (p) (1994) 121CTR 20 (Cal.) that even payment by account payee cheque is not sacrosanct and it would not make otherwise nongenuine transactions as genuine. 10.4 In view of above observations, the that assessee failed to establish (i creditworthiness of loan providers and (iii) genuineness of the Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. Assessing Officer noted that during survey action also the -company failed to provide any details about se companies except the statement that loans were received by and interest at the rate of 11% was paid. e decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Gems P. Ltd. Vs JCIT (2006) 206 CTR 585(SC) wherein it is held that payment by account payee cheque is not sufficient to establish the genuineness of the purchases. He further referred to of the decision of the Hon’ble High Court CIT Vs Prashant (p) (1994) 121CTR 20 (Cal.) wherein that even payment by account payee cheque is not sacrosanct and it would not make otherwise nongenuine transactions as genuine. In view of above observations, the Ld. Assessing Officer that assessee failed to establish (i) identity of the loan provider creditworthiness of loan providers and (iii) genuineness of the Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos. 7163 & 7162/M/2019 13 noted that during survey action also the failed to provide any details about loans were received by and interest at the rate of 11% was paid. The Assessing e decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Vs JCIT (2006) 206 CTR 585(SC) wherein it is held that payment by account payee cheque is not sufficient to establish the genuineness of the purchases. He further High Court in the case of wherein it is held that even payment by account payee cheque is not sacrosanct and it would not make otherwise nongenuine transactions as genuine. Assessing Officer held he loan provider (ii) creditworthiness of loan providers and (iii) genuineness of the transactions, and therefore he held those loans as unexplained cash credit in terms of section 68 of the 11. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee were made relying on the third opportunity was given to the assessee documents. The assessee f Paraswanath and Karishma, however the Ld. CIT(A) in terms of Ld. CIT(A) rejected the retraction statement of Paraswnath and Karishma. The assessee also filed copies of information, bank statement and acknowledgement of return in respect of the parties to support its of the Act. 11.1 Ld. CIT(A) however was of the view that assessee failed to satisfactorily explain the nature and source of the credit in his books Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. s, and therefore he held those loans as unexplained cash credit in terms of section 68 of the Act. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee submitted that additi were made relying on the third-party statement and no reasonable opportunity was given to the assessee to produce necessary . The assessee filed affidavits of the director of Paraswanath and Karishma, however same were not admitted by CIT(A) in terms of Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules Ld. CIT(A) rejected the retraction statements given by the directors of Paraswnath and Karishma. The assessee also filed copies of information, bank statement and acknowledgement of rn in respect of the parties to support its onus under section 68 Ld. CIT(A) however was of the view that assessee failed to satisfactorily explain the nature and source of the credit in his books Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos. 7163 & 7162/M/2019 14 s, and therefore he held those loans as unexplained cash submitted that additions party statement and no reasonable to produce necessary iled affidavits of the director of not admitted by Income Tax Rules, 1962. The given by the directors of Paraswnath and Karishma. The assessee also filed copies of information, bank statement and acknowledgement of Income-tax under section 68 Ld. CIT(A) however was of the view that assessee failed to satisfactorily explain the nature and source of the credit in his books of accounts and therefore sustain Assessing Officer. 12. We have heard submission of the relevant material on record assessee. As per rule 46 circumstances, additional evi be admitted: a. where the evidences b. where the assessee was prevented by the sufficient cause from producing the evidences which were called upon by the Assessing Offic c. where the assessee was prevented by the sufficient cause from producing the evidence which are relevant to the ground of the appeal Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. of accounts and therefore sustained the addition made by the We have heard submission of the Ld. DR and perused the relevant material on record including written submission of the . As per rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, ditional evidence produced by the assessee c where the Assessing Officer has refused to admit the where the assessee was prevented by the sufficient cause from producing the evidences which were called upon by Assessing Officer the assessee was prevented by the sufficient cause from producing the evidence which are relevant to the ground of the appeal Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos. 7163 & 7162/M/2019 15 the addition made by the and perused the including written submission of the 1962, in following dence produced by the assessee could has refused to admit the where the assessee was prevented by the sufficient cause from producing the evidences which were called upon by the assessee was prevented by the sufficient cause from producing the evidence which are relevant to the d. where Assessing Officer giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee to adduce evidences 13. From the written submissions filed by the assessee before us, we have noticed that the assessee filed a letter before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the assessee had requested for filing additional evidences, because those evidences could not be filed before the As Officer. The letter of the assessee filed before the Ld. CIT(A) on 07/08/2019 is available on page 18 of the paperbook. The relevant part of the said letter is reproduced as under: “In connection with the above assessment year, the appellant has fi an appeal as well as made submission before your Honour. Documents mentioned in page no. 24 to 39 and page no. 56 to 123 are being produced afresh which were not furnished during the course of assessment proceedings. The assessing officer called for th information in the month of September,2017 pertaining to the purchases and sales as well as confirmation in relation to unsecured loans appearing in the balance sheet. Since the details could not be collated earlier, the appellant could gather them only December, 2017. Due to complexities involved in gathering Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. Assessing Officer has passed the order without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee to adduce relevant to the ground of the appeal From the written submissions filed by the assessee before us, we have noticed that the assessee filed a letter before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the assessee had requested for filing additional evidences, those evidences could not be filed before the As The letter of the assessee filed before the Ld. CIT(A) on 07/08/2019 is available on page 18 of the paperbook. The relevant part of the said letter is reproduced as under: In connection with the above assessment year, the appellant has fi an appeal as well as made submission before your Honour. Documents mentioned in page no. 24 to 39 and page no. 56 to 123 are being produced afresh which were not furnished during the course of assessment proceedings. The assessing officer called for th information in the month of September,2017 pertaining to the purchases and sales as well as confirmation in relation to unsecured loans appearing in the balance sheet. Since the details could not be collated earlier, the appellant could gather them only in the month of December, 2017. Due to complexities involved in gathering Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos. 7163 & 7162/M/2019 16 has passed the order without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee to adduce levant to the ground of the appeal From the written submissions filed by the assessee before us, we have noticed that the assessee filed a letter before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the assessee had requested for filing additional evidences, those evidences could not be filed before the Assessing The letter of the assessee filed before the Ld. CIT(A) on 07/08/2019 is available on page 18 of the paperbook. The relevant In connection with the above assessment year, the appellant has filed an appeal as well as made submission before your Honour. Documents mentioned in page no. 24 to 39 and page no. 56 to 123 are being produced afresh which were not furnished during the course of assessment proceedings. The assessing officer called for the information in the month of September,2017 pertaining to the purchases and sales as well as confirmation in relation to unsecured loans appearing in the balance sheet. Since the details could not be in the month of December, 2017. Due to complexities involved in gathering information from the lenders who were already busy with their assessment proceedings, the appellant could not lay his hands for the information at earlier instance. However, when the for submission and the appellant approached the Assessing Officer, the appellant was informed that the assessment is framed and the submissions will not be entertained. In view of these facts clause (a) and clause (d). In the interest of your Honour kindly to admit the additional evidence and oblige. We have already furnished two sets of submission which enables your Goodselves to forward the same to the Assessing Officer for remand report. We underta producing all the necessary details if any called by him. Hope your Honour will please do the needful and admit the case for adjudication and oblige.” 13.1 We find that in the case of M/s Sunrise Associate in 244 & 245/Mum/2022 for AY 2013 Bench, in view of retraction Jain, has restored the matter of addition u/s 68 of the Act, back to the Assessing Officer for re 14. The Ld. DR could not controvert that there was limited time frame in which the assessee was asked to provide the information and before the assessee could file the said information Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. information from the lenders who were already busy with their assessment proceedings, the appellant could not lay his hands for the information at earlier instance. However, when the papers were ready for submission and the appellant approached the Assessing Officer, the appellant was informed that the assessment is framed and the submissions will not be entertained. In view of these facts clause (a) and clause (d). In the interest of natural justice, we earnestly request your Honour kindly to admit the additional evidence and oblige. We have already furnished two sets of submission which enables your Goodselves to forward the same to the Assessing Officer for remand report. We undertake to appear before the Assessing Officer for producing all the necessary details if any called by him. Hope your Honour will please do the needful and admit the case for adjudication We find that in the case of M/s Sunrise Associate in 244 & 245/Mum/2022 for AY 2013-14 & 2014-15, the Co traction of statement by Sh. Gautam Bhanwarlal Jain, has restored the matter of addition u/s 68 of the Act, back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination. could not controvert that there was limited time frame in which the assessee was asked to provide the information and before the assessee could file the said information Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos. 7163 & 7162/M/2019 17 information from the lenders who were already busy with their assessment proceedings, the appellant could not lay his hands for the papers were ready for submission and the appellant approached the Assessing Officer, the appellant was informed that the assessment is framed and the submissions will not be entertained. In view of these facts clause (a) natural justice, we earnestly request your Honour kindly to admit the additional evidence and oblige. We have already furnished two sets of submission which enables your Goodselves to forward the same to the Assessing Officer for remand ke to appear before the Assessing Officer for producing all the necessary details if any called by him. Hope your Honour will please do the needful and admit the case for adjudication We find that in the case of M/s Sunrise Associate in ITA No. 15, the Co-ordinate statement by Sh. Gautam Bhanwarlal Jain, has restored the matter of addition u/s 68 of the Act, back to could not controvert that there was limited time frame in which the assessee was asked to provide the information and before the assessee could file the said information, the assessment order was passed on 22/12/2017. In our opinion, the assessee fulfils the circumstances under sufficient opportunity admission. Since in respect of the ground No. have already restored the issue Assessing Officer and therefore simultaneous proceedings of Ld. CIT(A), we feel it appropriate to restore file of the Assessing Officer the additional evidences an be produced by the assessee. The ground of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 15. Ground No. 3 of the appeals is of the carry forward losses against the income determined after making additions. Since we have already restored both the issue of additions to the file of the Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. assessment order was passed on 22/12/2017. In our opinion, the fils the circumstances under Rule 46A(1)( sufficient opportunity, therefore additional evidences are eligible for admission. Since in respect of the ground No. 1 of the appeal, we have already restored the issue-in-dispute to the file of the and therefore, for avoiding multiplicity proceedings, instead of restoring the matter to the Ld. CIT(A), we feel it appropriate to restore the issue also to the Assessing Officer for deciding afresh after verification of the additional evidences and examination of the parties, which will be produced by the assessee. The ground of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. No. 3 of the appeals is in respect of not allowing set off forward losses against the income determined after making additions. Since we have already restored both the issue of additions to the file of the Assessing Officer and therefore set off of Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos. 7163 & 7162/M/2019 18 assessment order was passed on 22/12/2017. In our opinion, the 46A(1)(d) i.e. no therefore additional evidences are eligible for of the appeal, we the file of the for avoiding multiplicity of restoring the matter to the file issue also to the er verification of examination of the parties, which will be produced by the assessee. The ground of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. in respect of not allowing set off forward losses against the income determined after making additions. Since we have already restored both the issue of and therefore set off of the issue of the carry issue afresh by the Assessing Officer issue is only of academic the ground No. 3 of the appeal as ITA No. 4634/MUM/2018 Assessment Year: 2014 16. The grounds raised by the assessee for assessment year 2014 15 are reproduced as under: 1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not considering the submissions made in relation to retraction of statements recorded Mr. Cautam Jain which has a bearing on deciding the income or otherwise in the hands of the appellant. 2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 1.00.00.000/ Act. 3. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the additions of Rs. 36,63,718/ the income already offered by the appellant at about 5.12% as gross profit. 4. The Ld. Commission the additions of interest expenses of Rs. 16,78,356/ Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. carry forward losses will arise after deciding the Assessing Officer, and therefore at present this academic nature and therefore we are dismissing, No. 3 of the appeal as infructuous. ITA No. 4634/MUM/2018 2014-15 The grounds raised by the assessee for assessment year 2014 are reproduced as under: The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not considering the submissions made in relation to retraction of statements recorded in the case of Mr. Pramod Kumar Ranka and Mr. Cautam Jain which has a bearing on deciding the income or otherwise in the hands of the appellant. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 1.00.00.000/- under section 68 of the Income Tax The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the additions of Rs. 36,63,718/- as brokerage income in addition to the income already offered by the appellant at about 5.12% as gross The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the additions of interest expenses of Rs. 16,78,356/- Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos. 7163 & 7162/M/2019 19 forward losses will arise after deciding the , and therefore at present this and therefore we are dismissing, The grounds raised by the assessee for assessment year 2014- The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not considering the submissions made in relation to retraction of in the case of Mr. Pramod Kumar Ranka and Mr. Cautam Jain which has a bearing on deciding the income or The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding n 68 of the Income Tax The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding as brokerage income in addition to the income already offered by the appellant at about 5.12% as gross er of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding 5. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the additions of interest expenses of Rs. 6,07,472/ 17. Now we take up Ground No. 3 of th year 2014-15 for adjudication 18. The brief facts qua, the issue Officer in view of fact Mirah Group during the year under consideration, the Assess Officer rejected books of accounts of the assessee and commission/brokerage @ 2% on the sales of recorded in books of accounts. The addition for brokerage was worked out to ₹36,63,718/ the brokerage income on the test of human probability and circumstantial evidences following decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Meenaxi Mills Ltd. 63 ITR 609 & Co. 154 ITR 148. Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that assessee has also declared gross profit of Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the additions of interest expenses of Rs. 6,07,472/-. Now we take up Ground No. 3 of the assessee for assessment for adjudication. The brief facts qua, the issue-in-dispute are that the Assessing Officer in view of fact of issuing accommodation entry bills to during the year under consideration, the Assess Officer rejected books of accounts of the assessee and commission/brokerage @ 2% on the sales of ₹ recorded in books of accounts. The addition for brokerage was 36,63,718/-. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the estimation of the brokerage income on the test of human probability and circumstantial evidences following decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Meenaxi Mills Ltd. 63 ITR 609 & Co. 154 ITR 148. Before us, in the written submission filed, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that assessee has also declared gross profit of ₹1,21,56,097/- from the business activity Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos. 7163 & 7162/M/2019 20 The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding e assessee for assessment dispute are that the Assessing issuing accommodation entry bills to to M/s during the year under consideration, the Assessing Officer rejected books of accounts of the assessee and assessed ₹18,31,85,888/- recorded in books of accounts. The addition for brokerage was . The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the estimation of the brokerage income on the test of human probability and circumstantial evidences following decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Meenaxi Mills Ltd. 63 ITR 609 and McDowell us, in the written submission filed, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that assessee has also from the business activity recorded in the books of accounts According to his submission, when the assessee has also declared gross profit @ 5% on the business activity recorded in books of account which the Assessing Officer has treated as activity of providing accommodation entry and therefore, the Assessing Officer is not justified in making separate addition for commission/brokerage @ 2% in addition to income already declared by the assessee from said business activity. 19. On the other hand, the Ld. DR relied authorities. 20. We have heard submission relevant material on record including the order of the lower authorities. It is undisputed that the assessee has declared gross profit @ 5.12% on the transactions recorded in the books of account. The Ld. Assessing Officer has transactions related to M/s Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. recorded in the books of accounts at the gross profit rate submission, when the assessee has also declared gross profit @ 5% on the business activity recorded in books of account which the Assessing Officer has treated as activity of providing accommodation entry and therefore, the Assessing Officer ed in making separate addition for commission/brokerage @ 2% in addition to income already declared by the assessee from said business activity. he other hand, the Ld. DR relied on the order of the lower heard submission of the Ld. DR and relevant material on record including the order of the lower authorities. It is undisputed that the assessee has declared gross profit @ 5.12% on the transactions recorded in the books of account. The Ld. Assessing Officer has treated those very transactions related to M/s M/s Mirah Group as transaction of Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos. 7163 & 7162/M/2019 21 the gross profit rate of 5.12%. submission, when the assessee has also declared gross profit @ 5% on the business activity recorded in books of account which the Assessing Officer has treated as activity of providing accommodation entry and therefore, the Assessing Officer ed in making separate addition for commission/brokerage @ 2% in addition to income already declared by the assessee from said business activity. on the order of the lower of the Ld. DR and perused the relevant material on record including the order of the lower authorities. It is undisputed that the assessee has declared gross profit @ 5.12% on the transactions recorded in the books of treated those very as transaction of providing accommodation entry without any real business but has not excluded the income offered by the assessee from said transactions of business. The Assessing Officer has addition @ 2% on the very same transaction on which the Assessing Officer has declared gross profit rate of 5.12%. In our opinion, a separate addition for the brokerage or commission is not req in the facts of the case considered as generated from accommodation entry transactions which subsumes in the gross profit @ 5.12% already declared by the assessee. The only difference the income which acc issuing accommodation entry bills whereas according to the assessee profit has been earned from business activity recorded in books of account. Thus lower authorities are not justified in making addition over and above the income @ 5.12% offered by the assessee from business transaction. Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. providing accommodation entry without any real business but has not excluded the income offered by the assessee from said transactions of business. The Assessing Officer has separately made addition @ 2% on the very same transaction on which the Assessing Officer has declared gross profit rate of 5.12%. In our opinion, a separate addition for the brokerage or commission is not req in the facts of the case. The commission or brokerage considered as generated from accommodation entry transactions in the gross profit @ 5.12% already declared by the assessee. The only difference is of characterization of the source of the income which according to the Assessing Officer is from the issuing accommodation entry bills whereas according to the assessee profit has been earned from business activity recorded in Thus lower authorities are not justified in making above the income @ 5.12% offered by the assessee from business transaction. In view of the above discussion, Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos. 7163 & 7162/M/2019 22 providing accommodation entry without any real business but has not excluded the income offered by the assessee from said separately made addition @ 2% on the very same transaction on which the Assessing Officer has declared gross profit rate of 5.12%. In our opinion, a separate addition for the brokerage or commission is not required commission or brokerage @ 2% can be considered as generated from accommodation entry transactions, in the gross profit @ 5.12% already declared by the characterization of the source of Assessing Officer is from the issuing accommodation entry bills whereas according to the assessee profit has been earned from business activity recorded in Thus lower authorities are not justified in making above the income @ 5.12% offered by the In view of the above discussion, we set aside the order of the lower authorities on the issue dispute that allow the ground raised by the assessee. 21. Ground No. 1, 2, 4 and assessee during the year under consideration and interest in respect of loans received during the year earlier years. In Ground No. 2, the addition of as loan from M/s Marine Gems P Ltd. has been added as unexplained cash credit in terms of section 68 of the Act. In ground No. 3, the interest, in respect of loans received from M/s Marine Gems P Ltd amounting to ₹16,78,356/ interest of ₹6,07,472/ M/s Parshwnath Gems P. Ltd. and Limited has been added which have been disputed by the assessee. 22. We find that the issue parties namely M/s M/s Marine Gems P Ltd, M/s Parshwnath Gems Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. we set aside the order of the lower authorities on the issue dispute that allow the ground raised by the assessee. Ground No. 1, 2, 4 and 5 relates to loans received by the assessee during the year under consideration and interest in respect of loans received during the year/interest in respect of loan in earlier years. In Ground No. 2, the addition of ₹1.00 crores received Marine Gems P Ltd. has been added as unexplained cash credit in terms of section 68 of the Act. In ground No. 3, the interest, in respect of loans received from M/s Marine Gems P Ltd 16,78,356/- has been disputed. In ground No. 5, 6,07,472/- credited in respect of loans received from M/s Parshwnath Gems P. Ltd. and Karishma Diamonds Private has been added by the Assessing Officer u/s 68 of the Act which have been disputed by the assessee. We find that the issue-in-dispute of treating loan received from parties namely M/s M/s Marine Gems P Ltd, M/s Parshwnath Gems Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos. 7163 & 7162/M/2019 23 we set aside the order of the lower authorities on the issue-in- dispute that allow the ground raised by the assessee. 5 relates to loans received by the assessee during the year under consideration and interest in respect interest in respect of loan in 1.00 crores received Marine Gems P Ltd. has been added as unexplained cash credit in terms of section 68 of the Act. In ground No. 3, the interest, in respect of loans received from M/s Marine Gems P Ltd has been disputed. In ground No. 5, credited in respect of loans received from Karishma Diamonds Private by the Assessing Officer u/s 68 of the Act pute of treating loan received from parties namely M/s M/s Marine Gems P Ltd, M/s Parshwnath Gems P. Ltd., Karishma Diamonds Private Limited restored to the file of assessment year 2014 finding in assessment year 2013 the appeal of the assessee are also restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding afresh following our direction in assessment year 2013 allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No. 7162/MUM/2019 Assessment Year: 2015 23. Now we take up the appeal of the asse 2015-16. The ground No. 1 relates to rejection of books of accounts and making of estimated of under consideration. The Assessing Officer from brokerage for issuing accommodation entry bills @ 5% of the total sales. In written submission, the Ld. Counsel has submitted that during the year gross profit rate declared is of Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. Karishma Diamonds Private Limited has already been restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding afresh in assessment year 2014-15. Therefore, accordingly, following our finding in assessment year 2013-14, these grounds No. 1, 2, 4 & 5 the appeal of the assessee are also restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding afresh following our direction in assessment year 2013-14. These grounds of appeal are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No. 7162/MUM/2019 2015-16 Now we take up the appeal of the assessee for assessment year . The ground No. 1 relates to rejection of books of accounts and making of estimated of addition of ₹79,51,707/ . The Assessing Officer has estimated income from brokerage for issuing accommodation entry bills @ 5% of the tal sales. In written submission, the Ld. Counsel has submitted that during the year gross profit rate declared is of Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos. 7163 & 7162/M/2019 24 has already been the Assessing Officer for deciding afresh in efore, accordingly, following our s No. 1, 2, 4 & 5 of the appeal of the assessee are also restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding afresh following our direction in These grounds of appeal are accordingly ssee for assessment year . The ground No. 1 relates to rejection of books of accounts 79,51,707/- in the year has estimated income from brokerage for issuing accommodation entry bills @ 5% of the of the assessee has submitted that during the year gross profit rate declared is of 6.97%, which is much higher than the brokerage/commission income estimated by the Assessing Officer issue has already been decided by us in assessment year 2014 therefore, following our fin addition for brokerage/commission on accommodation entry bills on the basis of transactions for which the assessee has alread reported gross profit @ 6.97% income is subsumed in therefore no separate required. The ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed. 24. The ground No. 2 of the appeal relates to addition ₹17,18,44,093/- in terms of section 68 of the Act treating the loans as unexplained cash credit. The issue in dispute in the year under consideration is identical to the issue of the cash credit in assessment year 2013 assessment year 2013 Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. much higher than the brokerage/commission by the Assessing Officer i.e. 5%. issue has already been decided by us in assessment year 2014 therefore, following our finding in assessment year 2014 addition for brokerage/commission on accommodation entry bills on the basis of transactions for which the assessee has alread reported gross profit @ 6.97%, we hold that brokerage/commission subsumed in gross profit declared by the assessee and therefore no separate addition for commission/brokerage is required. The ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed. The ground No. 2 of the appeal relates to addition in terms of section 68 of the Act treating the loans as unexplained cash credit. The issue in dispute in the year under consideration is identical to the issue of the cash credit in essment year 2013-14 and therefore, following our fin assessment year 2013-14, the ground No. 2 of the appeal of the Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos. 7163 & 7162/M/2019 25 much higher than the brokerage/commission i.e. 5%. The identical issue has already been decided by us in assessment year 2014-15, ding in assessment year 2014-15, the addition for brokerage/commission on accommodation entry bills on the basis of transactions for which the assessee has already we hold that brokerage/commission gross profit declared by the assessee and addition for commission/brokerage is required. The ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed. The ground No. 2 of the appeal relates to addition of in terms of section 68 of the Act treating the loans as unexplained cash credit. The issue in dispute in the year under consideration is identical to the issue of the cash credit in 14 and therefore, following our finding in ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is also allowed for statistical purposes with the direction the Assessing Officer for deciding afresh following our dire assessment year 2013 25. In the result, the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed partly for statistical Order pronounced in the Court Sd/- (ABY T VARKEY JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 27/07/2022 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)- 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard file. //True Copy// Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. assessee is also allowed for statistical purposes with the direction the Assessing Officer for deciding afresh following our dire assessment year 2013-14. In the result, the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes. ounced in the Court on 27/07/2022. Sd/ ABY T VARKEY) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Mumbai Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos. 7163 & 7162/M/2019 26 assessee is also allowed for statistical purposes with the direction to the Assessing Officer for deciding afresh following our direction in In the result, the three appeals filed by the assessee are Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) MEMBER Secretary) ITAT, Mumbai