Ankur Mrugeshchandra Acharya, Ahmedabad V. The DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad

MA 69/AHD/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2473 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 08-05-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 21-03-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: MEHUL K. PATEL

Judgement Text

M.A. Nos.64 to 90/Ahd/2024 Girish Ambalal Thakkar & Others Assessment Years: 2009-10 to 2014-15 Page 1 of 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. Nos.64 & 65/Ahd/2024 (In ITA Nos.1345 & 1346/Ahd/2018) Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 respectively Girish Ambalal Thakkar, 401, Building No.34, Anandnagar Flats, 100 Ft. Ring Road, Satellite, Ahmedabad – 380 015. [PAN – AGMPT 9327 K] Vs. The DCIT, Central Circle – 1(1), Ahmedabad. M.A. Nos.66, 67, 68, 69 & 70/Ahd/2024 (In ITA Nos.1351, 1352, 1353, 1354 & 1355/Ahd/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 respectively Ankur Mrugeshchandra Acharya, 15, Nutan Sardarnagar Society, Ambica Nagar, Odhav, Ahmedabad – 382 415. [PAN – AEZPA 5190 A] Vs. The DCIT, Central Circle – 1(1), Ahmedabad. M.A. Nos.71, 72, 73, 74 & 75/Ahd/2024 (In ITA Nos.1356, 1357, 1358, 1359 & 1360/Ahd/2018) Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 respectively Nareshkumar Manilal Senma, 87, Kundanlal Ni Chawl, Last Bus Stop, Gayatri Park, Meghaninagar, Ahmedabad – 380 016. [PAN – BRKPS 5699 P] Vs. The DCIT, Central Circle – 1(1), Ahmedabad. M.A. Nos.76, 77, 78, 79, 80 & 81/Ahd/2024 (ITA Nos.1361, 1362, 1363, 1364, 1365 & 1366/Ahd/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 respectively M.A. Nos.64 to 90/Ahd/2024 Girish Ambalal Thakkar & Others Assessment Years: 2009-10 to 2014-15 Page 2 of 4 Subhashbhai Bharatbhai Hindocha, B-353, 1, Parwshwanath Township Part, Sector-2, Krishnagar, Nava Naroda, Ahmedabad – 382 325. [PAN – ADTPT 1264 B] Vs. The DCIT, Central Circle – 1(1), Ahmedabad. M.A. Nos.82, 83, 84, 85 & 86/Ahd/2024 (In ITA Nos.1367, 1368, 1369, 1370 & 1371/Ahd/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 respectively Sagarbhai Mahjibhai Rabari, 504, Rabari Vasahat, Nava Vadaj, Ahmedabad – 380 013. [PAN – AGZPR 4505 N] Vs. The DCIT, Central Circle – 1(1), Ahmedabad. M.A. Nos.87, 88, 89 & 90/Ahd/2024 (In ITA Nos.1372, 1373, 1374 & 1375/Ahd/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 respectively Anilkumar Mukeshkumar Kadiya, 3772/1/B, Ambliwalo Khancho, Nr. Ladusha Pir, Kadia Kui, Dariapur, Ahmedabad – 380 001. [PAN – AVZPK 0475 F] The DCIT, Central Circle – 1(1), Ahmedabad. (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee by Shri Mehul K. Patel, AR Revenue by Shri J.L. Bhatia, Sr. DR Da t e o f He a rin g 03.05.2024 Da t e o f P ro n o u n ce m e n t 09.05.2024 O R D E R These twenty-seven Miscellaneous Applications are filed by six different assessees in respect of order dated 01.09.2023, which is a common/consolidated order, for all the appeals passed by the Tribunal. M.A. Nos.64 to 90/Ahd/2024 Girish Ambalal Thakkar & Others Assessment Years: 2009-10 to 2014-15 Page 3 of 4 2. The Ld. AR submitted that the Tribunal in Paragraph No.9 at Page No.10 of the order dated 01.09.2023 has given a categorical finding that the Net Profit at 25% of the Gross Commission adopted in Dahyalal I. Thakkar and the same rate should be adopted. Therefore, the observation/direction given to the Assessing Officer to give credit of expenditure by allowing the same has to be at 75% to Gross Commission as expenditure and quantify the same but the Tribunal inadvertently, probably because of the typographical error, instead of 75% mentioned as 25%. Therefore, the same mistake may be rectified. 3. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Tribunal. 4. Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. From the perusal of the order dated 01.09.2023, it appears that regarding the direction to the Assessing Officer, inadvertently the percentage of Gross Commission as expenditure was quantified wrongly and it is a typographical error and mistake apparent on record. Therefore, the order dated 01.09.2023 in respect of Paragraph No.9 is hereby modified and read as under :- “9. Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. From the perusal of the order of the Tribunal in case of Jalaram Finvest Limited and Dahyalal I. Thakkar, it is clear that this is not benami transaction and the assessee involved herein is earning income from commission from cheque discounting business. The assessee is not disputing the addition on account of income earned from commission from cheque discounting in his hand. The assessee’s plea is that the addition of income without giving credit for expenses incurred for earning this income is not justifiable on the part of the Assessing Officer. In case of Dahyalal I. Thakkar, net profit at 25% of the gross commission was taken and his statement recorded on various occasions clearly set out that half part of the commission received were paid to various intermediaries/ shroffs as they are giving the work of cheque discounting to the assessee. The said contentions of the assessee was not accepted by the CIT(A) but from the perusal of records, it appears that the assessee is receiving only half part of the commission and not the entire commission as to divert the full amount of commission into perks to its various intermediaries which are giving the business to the assessee. In fact, it is an admitted position that the assessee is keeping the record of commission income and from the statement it emerges that the commission paid to other shroffs is also reflected from various statements. The fact in case of Jalaram Finvest Limited, net profit which was shown at 9.5% to 12.5% should have been adopted in assessee’s case is justifiable as the assessee is also dealing with the cheque discounting and commission on not just directly but through various other shroffs for whom the assessee has M.A. Nos.64 to 90/Ahd/2024 Girish Ambalal Thakkar & Others Assessment Years: 2009-10 to 2014-15 Page 4 of 4 to pay commission in part. The net profit at 25% of gross commission adopted in Dahyalal I. Thakkar, the same rate should be adopted in the case of assessee as well as the same is justifiable through various records of commission income earned as well as commission paid to other shrifts by the assessee. The observation of the CIT(A) that there is no documentary evidence appears to be incorrect as the assessee has given clarification to that extent by giving the modus operandi of the working of the cheque discounting and commission paid thereon. The Revenue at no point of time disputed that the assessee is also providing cash to various parties on cheque and also taking cash for which the assessee is issuing cheque. Thus, the expenditure worked out at Rs.75,388/- appears to be not justifiable and it is hereby directed to the Assessing Officer to give credit of the expenditure by allowing the same at 75% of gross commission as expenditure and quantify the same. Appeal being ITA No.1367/Ahd/2018 for A.Y. 2009-10 is partly allowed.” 5. All the Miscellaneous Applications are common as a consolidated order is passed in all the appeals. Hence, all the Miscellaneous Applications filed by the assessee are allowed. 6. In the result, all the 27 Miscellaneous Applications filed by the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 9 th May, 2024. Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) Judicial Member Ahmedabad, the 9 th May, 2024 PBN/* Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPY Assistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ahmedabad benches, Ahmedabad