NEW EDGE SHARES AND SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 18(1), DELHI, DELHI

ITA 1691/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves New Edge Shares & Securities Pvt. Ltd., which appealed against the reassessment order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The reassessment was based on information that the company had received accommodation entries from entities linked to Jain Brothers, who were involved in providing such entries through a network of shell companies. The Tribunal found that the company acted merely as a conduit for these entries and modified the assessment to apply a nominal income tax rate of 0.3% on the total credits received, instead of the higher rate initially applied by the Assessing Officer.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 23535 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 24-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 12-04-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMIT SHUKLA
• Keywords: Set aside; Business income; Reassessment proceedings; Unexplained cash credit; Reopening of assessment; Accommodation entries
• Section: 147; 148; 143(3); 250

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No [Assessment Year : New Edge Shares & Securities Pvt.Ltd., 2nd Floor, 4935, Pathak Namak, Near Chawri Bazar Metro Station, Hauz QA, Delhi-110006. PAN-AADCN3713H APPELLANT Appellant by Respondent by Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA The instant appeal has been filed at the instance of to assail the First Appellate order dated Commissioner of Income Tax (A), [“Ld.CIT(A)”] u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] against arising from the assessment order dated concerning Assessment Year 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the 1. “On facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT( erred in law in upholding the impugned reassessment proceedings ignoring the fact that the jurisdictional notice u/s 148 was never served upon the appellant in compliance of sec 282A rwr 127 of IT rules 1962 and therefore, such proceedings without s u/s 148 is valid in law and void IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “E” BENCH: NEW DELHI SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1691/Del/2024 Assessment Year : 2011-12] New Edge Shares & Securities Floor, 4935, Pathak Namak, Near Chawri Bazar Metro Station, Hauz QA, AADCN3713H vs ITO, Ward-18(1), Delhi. RESPONDENT Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, CA Respondent by Shri Amit Shukla, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 24.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement 14.11.2024 ORDER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, AM : The instant appeal has been filed at the instance of the assessee seeking to assail the First Appellate order dated 15.02.2024 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, [“Ld.CIT(A)”] u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] against arising from the assessment order dated 26.12.2018 passed u/s 144/147 ear 2011-12. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee read as under: “On facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT( erred in law in upholding the impugned reassessment proceedings ignoring the fact that the jurisdictional notice u/s 148 was never served upon the appellant in compliance of sec 282A rwr 127 of IT rules 1962 and therefore, such proceedings without service of notice u/s 148 is valid in law and void-ab-initio. SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & RESPONDENT Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, CA assessee seeking passed by the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Ld.CIT(A)”] u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] against arising 4/147 of the Act, read as under:- “On facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in law in upholding the impugned reassessment proceedings ignoring the fact that the jurisdictional notice u/s 148 was never served upon the appellant in compliance of sec 282A rwr 127 of IT ervice of notice 2. On facts and circumstances of the case, the authorities below have erred in upholding the reassessment proceedings ignoring the fact that impugned assessment is invalid and without jurisdictio said assessment is completed without complying with legal requirements of the provisions of section 147/148/151 of the Income Tax Act therefore such assessment is void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 3. The Ld CIT(A) has erred both on facts a addition of Rs.98,20,000/ Rs.43,30,800/ submission and explanation made during appeal proceedings and also the stand taken by the department on the i succeeding assessment year i.e. AY 2012 3. Briefly stated the assessee company is a Private Limited Company and was engaged in the business of trading of shares of listed and unlisted companies on commission basis. The assessee did Assessment Year 2011-12 in question. The name of the assessee be struck off from record of Registrar of Company w.e.f 13.03.2012 basis of certain adverse information seizure operation on 17.12.2015 on individuals namely Shri Anand Kumar Jain and Shri Naresh Kumar Jain (Jain Brothers), the Investigation Wing Income tax Department found that above individuals were engaged in the activities of providing accommoda cheques, demand draft (“DD”) dummy companies floated and controlled by him. The Assessing Officer (“AO”) of the assessee was accordingly, intimated that the assess beneficiaries who has taken accommodation entries of an amount of INR 98,20,055/- from the entities of the above searched persons. Based on the information, proceedings u/s 147/148 of the Act was notice dated 26.03.2018 u/s 148 of the Act. The assessment was completed ITA No. On facts and circumstances of the case, the authorities below have erred in upholding the reassessment proceedings ignoring the fact that impugned assessment is invalid and without jurisdictio said assessment is completed without complying with legal requirements of the provisions of section 147/148/151 of the Income Tax Act therefore such assessment is void ab initio and liable to be The Ld CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.98,20,000/- u/s 68 of IT Act and addition of Rs.43,30,800/- under the head business income ignoring the submission and explanation made during appeal proceedings and also the stand taken by the department on the identical facts in succeeding assessment year i.e. AY 2012-13.” Briefly stated the assessee company is a Private Limited Company and was engaged in the business of trading of shares of listed and unlisted companies on commission basis. The assessee did not file return of income for 12 in question. The name of the assessee struck off from record of Registrar of Company w.e.f 13.03.2012 basis of certain adverse information discovered in the course of search an seizure operation on 17.12.2015 on individuals namely Shri Anand Kumar Jain and Shri Naresh Kumar Jain (Jain Brothers), the Investigation Wing found that above individuals were engaged in the accommodation entries to various beneficiar (“DD”), RTGS, NEFT in lieu of cash through paper and dummy companies floated and controlled by him. The Assessing Officer (“AO”) of the assessee was accordingly, intimated that the assessee is one of the who has taken accommodation entries of an amount of INR from the entities of the above searched persons. Based on the , proceedings u/s 147/148 of the Act was initiated by issuance of 3.2018 u/s 148 of the Act. The assessment was completed ITA No.1691/Del/2024 Page | 2 On facts and circumstances of the case, the authorities below have erred in upholding the reassessment proceedings ignoring the fact that impugned assessment is invalid and without jurisdiction as the said assessment is completed without complying with legal requirements of the provisions of section 147/148/151 of the Income Tax Act therefore such assessment is void ab initio and liable to be nd in law in confirming the u/s 68 of IT Act and addition of under the head business income ignoring the submission and explanation made during appeal proceedings and dentical facts in Briefly stated the assessee company is a Private Limited Company and was engaged in the business of trading of shares of listed and unlisted not file return of income for 12 in question. The name of the assessee is stated to struck off from record of Registrar of Company w.e.f 13.03.2012. On the of search and seizure operation on 17.12.2015 on individuals namely Shri Anand Kumar Jain and Shri Naresh Kumar Jain (Jain Brothers), the Investigation Wing of the found that above individuals were engaged in the tion entries to various beneficiaries through , RTGS, NEFT in lieu of cash through paper and dummy companies floated and controlled by him. The Assessing Officer (“AO”) ee is one of the who has taken accommodation entries of an amount of INR from the entities of the above searched persons. Based on the by issuance of 3.2018 u/s 148 of the Act. The assessment was completed ex-parte u/s 144/147 of the Act wherein income was assessed at INR 1,41,50,800/- by making following additions: * Addition of INR 98,20,000/ reason recorded on * Addition of INR 43,30,800/ the basis of credit submissions in the bank account. 4. Aggrieved the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Ld.CIT(A) also confirmed the additions and also confirmed additions of INR 43,30,800/ income’. 5. Further aggrieved the assessee preferred appeal before the 6. The assessee raises several legal grounds and in the same vain submitted that the assessee has very strong case on merits also. the submissions on behalf of the assessee read as under: “From the reason recorded, it can be noticed that Ld AO found that assessee has accepted credits of Rs.98,20,055/ Sh Naresh Jain and Sh Anand Jain. The copy of bank statement of appellant was obtained by the Ld AO u/s 131(1) of IT Act through summon dt: 18.10.2018 (PB 5) issued to M/s Kotak Mahindra Bank. From the bank statement so obtained (PB other credit entries in the bank statement aggregating Rs.5,41,35,000/ The Ld AO treated the credit entries of Rs.98,20,000/ which action of reopening was taken as unexplained credits u/ Act and for the credits noticed during assessment proceedings, the Ld AO treated the same as business receipts and completed the assessment by estimating the net profit ratio of 8% on the above aggregate receipts to the extent of Rs.5,41,35,000/ The appellant seeks to draw your kind attention to the peculiar facts of the case which have not been correctly appreciated by the Ld AO while ITA No. u/s 144/147 of the Act wherein income was assessed at INR by making following additions:- Addition of INR 98,20,000/- u/s 68 of I.T Act on the basis of the reason recorded on reopening of assessment. Addition of INR 43,30,800/- estimating the business income @8% on the basis of credit submissions in the bank account. the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Ld.CIT(A) also confirmed the additions of INR 98,20,000/- u/s 68 of the Act additions of INR 43,30,800/- under the head ‘business Further aggrieved the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal The assessee raises several legal grounds and in the same vain submitted that the assessee has very strong case on merits also. the submissions on behalf of the assessee read as under:- “From the reason recorded, it can be noticed that Ld AO found that assessee has accepted credits of Rs.98,20,055/- from entities belonging to Sh Naresh Jain and Sh Anand Jain. The copy of bank statement of appellant was obtained by the Ld AO u/s 131(1) of IT Act through summon dt: 18.10.2018 (PB 5) issued to M/s Kotak Mahindra Bank. From the bank statement so obtained (PB 6-12), the assessing officer found that there are other credit entries in the bank statement aggregating Rs.5,41,35,000/ The Ld AO treated the credit entries of Rs.98,20,000/-, the amount for which action of reopening was taken as unexplained credits u/ Act and for the credits noticed during assessment proceedings, the Ld AO treated the same as business receipts and completed the assessment by estimating the net profit ratio of 8% on the above aggregate receipts to the extent of Rs.5,41,35,000/-. The appellant seeks to draw your kind attention to the peculiar facts of the case which have not been correctly appreciated by the Ld AO while ITA No.1691/Del/2024 Page | 3 u/s 144/147 of the Act wherein income was assessed at INR u/s 68 of I.T Act on the basis of the estimating the business income @8% on the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The u/s 68 of the Act under the head ‘business Tribunal. The assessee raises several legal grounds and in the same vain, submitted that the assessee has very strong case on merits also. On merits, “From the reason recorded, it can be noticed that Ld AO found that m entities belonging to Sh Naresh Jain and Sh Anand Jain. The copy of bank statement of appellant was obtained by the Ld AO u/s 131(1) of IT Act through summon dt: 18.10.2018 (PB 5) issued to M/s Kotak Mahindra Bank. From the bank 12), the assessing officer found that there are other credit entries in the bank statement aggregating Rs.5,41,35,000/-. , the amount for which action of reopening was taken as unexplained credits u/s 68 of IT Act and for the credits noticed during assessment proceedings, the Ld AO treated the same as business receipts and completed the assessment by estimating the net profit ratio of 8% on the above aggregate receipts to the The appellant seeks to draw your kind attention to the peculiar facts of the case which have not been correctly appreciated by the Ld AO while passing the impugned order of assessment. The reason recorded clearly shows that the searched persons have bee providing accommodation entries to various beneficiaries through cheques/DD/RTGS/NEFT In lieu of cash through various dummy and paper companies controlled by them. Kindly refer to para B(1) of reason recorded (PB 17) and in sub documents and electronic data where material pertaining to shell companies were found and those companies were used as conduit to provide accommodation entries to various beneficiaries and those companies actually belonging to Jain Brothers and their associates. Kindly refer to sub-para x of above para 3. The fact of shell companies used for providing accommodation entries was reiterated in sub above para where there is clear mention that such shel and controlled by those Jain Brothers. From these facts, it may be appreciated that there were two categories of entities involved in the activities of accommodation entries. In the first category are the companies which are beneficiari brothers and such companies are under obligation to discharge burden u/s 68 qua the credits accepted from Jain brothers. But there is second category of companies which are used as conduit for providing accommodation entries by multi are simply engaged in providing accommodation entries either intra group or to the beneficiaries from the funds transferred by the group companies of Jain Brothers. The appellant was i managed by Jain group falling in the second category. During the year under consideration, the total credits obtained by the appellant company from Jain group entities is Rs.6,39,55,000/ , were given to various entities who were either ultimate beneficiaries or the layer in the multi ITA No. passing the impugned order of assessment. The reason recorded clearly shows that the searched persons have been found in the business of providing accommodation entries to various beneficiaries through cheques/DD/RTGS/NEFT In lieu of cash through various dummy and paper companies controlled by them. Kindly refer to para B(1) of reason recorded (PB 17) and in sub-para 3(vii) there is mention of seizure of documents and electronic data where material pertaining to shell companies were found and those companies were used as conduit to provide accommodation entries to various beneficiaries and those belonging to Jain Brothers and their associates. Kindly para x of above para 3. The fact of shell companies used for providing accommodation entries was reiterated in sub-para XVIII of the above para where there is clear mention that such shell companies floated and controlled by those Jain Brothers. From these facts, it may be appreciated that there were two categories of entities involved in the activities of accommodation entries. In the first category are the companies which are beneficiaries of the accommodation entries provided by the Jain brothers and such companies are under obligation to discharge burden u/s 68 qua the credits accepted from Jain brothers. But there is second category of companies which are used as conduit for providing accommodation entries by multi-layering of transactions. Such companies are simply engaged in providing accommodation entries either intra group or to the beneficiaries from the funds transferred by the group companies The appellant was in the category of shell companies controlled and managed by Jain group falling in the second category. During the year under consideration, the total credits obtained by the appellant company from Jain group entities is Rs.6,39,55,000/- out of which Rs.6,3 , were given to various entities who were either ultimate beneficiaries or the layer in the multi- layering process adopted in the accommodation ITA No.1691/Del/2024 Page | 4 passing the impugned order of assessment. The reason recorded clearly n found in the business of providing accommodation entries to various beneficiaries through cheques/DD/RTGS/NEFT In lieu of cash through various dummy and paper companies controlled by them. Kindly refer to para B(1) of reason ara 3(vii) there is mention of seizure of documents and electronic data where material pertaining to shell companies were found and those companies were used as conduit to provide accommodation entries to various beneficiaries and those belonging to Jain Brothers and their associates. Kindly para x of above para 3. The fact of shell companies used for para XVIII of the l companies floated and controlled by those Jain Brothers. From these facts, it may be appreciated that there were two categories of entities involved in the activities of accommodation entries. In the first category are the companies es of the accommodation entries provided by the Jain brothers and such companies are under obligation to discharge burden u/s 68 qua the credits accepted from Jain brothers. But there is second category of companies which are used as conduit for providing layering of transactions. Such companies are simply engaged in providing accommodation entries either intra group or to the beneficiaries from the funds transferred by the group companies n the category of shell companies controlled and managed by Jain group falling in the second category. During the year under consideration, the total credits obtained by the appellant company out of which Rs.6,39,50,000/- , were given to various entities who were either ultimate beneficiaries or layering process adopted in the accommodation business. A complete chart how the amount received Rs.6,39,55,000/ was transferred to other entities Chart of inflow of funds in the bank account and corresponding out flow to other entities Inflow of funds Addition made u/s 68 98,20,000/ Additions on estimated profit on the other credits 5,41,35,000/ Total 6,39,55,000/ Amounts received from Director Shri Rajan Mehra not considered for addition Grand Total 6,39,80,045/ It is therefore, a case where the department while initiating reassessment proceedings and also completing the reassessment proceedings has failed to take into account, the status of the used by the Jain brothers for routing the accommodation entries to other beneficiaries. From these facts, the reason recorded are based on correct facts as in such cases, no cash is received from the appellant company but the cash is received from beneficiary to whom from the help of appellant, the accommodation entry lends up in the accounts of beneficiaries. It is a case where the transaction is done on some nominal commission and there is no justification to treat the amou credits which are required to be explained. It is therefore a case where funds get transmitted to other entities as soon as these are provided to assessee and it will be fair and reasonable that a nominal income by way of commission be assessed in the hands of appellant. ITA No. business. A complete chart how the amount received Rs.6,39,55,000/ was transferred to other entities is reproduced hereunder: Chart of inflow of funds in the bank account and corresponding out flow to other entities Outflow of funds Names of parties with amounts 98,20,000/- Purushotam Invtofin Ltd. A R Overseas Links P.Ltd. NRS Investment Consultants P.Ltd. Expert Projects Consultants P.Ltd. Energic Advisory P.Ltd. PD Fabrication P.Ltd. 5,41,35,000/- 6,39,55,000/- Total 25,045/- Amounts spent for other purposes 1.Bank Charges 2.ROC Expenses Closing Balance 6,39,80,045/- Grand Total It is therefore, a case where the department while initiating reassessment proceedings and also completing the reassessment proceedings has failed to take into account, the status of the company being a conduit company used by the Jain brothers for routing the accommodation entries to other beneficiaries. From these facts, the reason recorded are based on correct facts as in such cases, no cash is received from the appellant company but e cash is received from beneficiary to whom from the help of appellant, the accommodation entry lends up in the accounts of beneficiaries. It is a case where the transaction is done on some nominal commission and there is no justification to treat the amount to the extent of Rs.98,20,000/ credits which are required to be explained. It is therefore a case where funds get transmitted to other entities as soon as these are provided to assessee and it will be fair and reasonable that a nominal income by way of commission be assessed in the hands of appellant. ITA No.1691/Del/2024 Page | 5 business. A complete chart how the amount received Rs.6,39,55,000/- Chart of inflow of funds in the bank account and corresponding 4,60,50,000/- 50,00,000/- 38,00,000/- 25,00,000/- 31,00,000/- 35,00,000/- 6,39,50,000/- 1158/- 552/- 28,335/- 6,39,80,045/- It is therefore, a case where the department while initiating reassessment proceedings and also completing the reassessment proceedings has failed company being a conduit company used by the Jain brothers for routing the accommodation entries to other beneficiaries. From these facts, the reason recorded are based on correct facts as in such cases, no cash is received from the appellant company but e cash is received from beneficiary to whom from the help of appellant, the accommodation entry lends up in the accounts of beneficiaries. It is a case where the transaction is done on some nominal commission and there nt to the extent of Rs.98,20,000/- as credits which are required to be explained. It is therefore a case where funds get transmitted to other entities as soon as these are provided to assessee and it will be fair and reasonable that a nominal income by way The department itself in the impugned order partly accepts the above argument while estimating the income of appellant on the balance credit of Rs.5,41,35,000/- by taking income at the rate of 8%. The profit ratio of 8% is contrary to the net profit ratio of 0.3% accepted in the assessment of appellant in succeeding assessment year i.e. AY 2012 Copy of assessment order is 7. The Ld. Counsel for the that the assessee is merely a pass providing accommodation entries. The only option available Department is to estimate income of such transactions income by way of facilitation commission which in Assessment Year 2012 has been taken on 0.3% by the AO himself. T can adopt 0.3% on entire credits amount of INR 6,39,55,000/ 8. Ld. Counsel for the assessee also pointed out that the assessment order is also marred from the vi Act as per Ground Nos. 1 & 2 of its appeal. However, if the additions on merits are restricted to 0.3% in line with the Assessment Year 2012-13, & 2 of its appeal to save time from protracted litigation. 9. The Ld. Sr. DR for the lower authorities. 10. We carefully considered assessee that total credit entries in the bank accounts of the struck off company stood at INR 6,39,55,000/ from Jain Group entities. Out of 6,39,50,000/- were given to various beneficiaries or some layer the accommodation business. The assessee company thus is conduit company used by the Jain Bros. for ro to other beneficiaries. It is further the case of the assessee that in ITA No. The department itself in the impugned order partly accepts the above argument while estimating the income of appellant on the balance credit of by taking income at the rate of 8%. The adoption of net profit ratio of 8% is contrary to the net profit ratio of 0.3% accepted in the of appellant in succeeding assessment year i.e. AY 2012 Copy of assessment order is placed in paper book at page 3-4. for the assessee thus, submitted that it is fact on record merely a pass through entity and engaged in assistance of providing accommodation entries. The only option available Department is to estimate income of such transactions by taking income by way of facilitation commission which in Assessment Year 2012 by the AO himself. Therefore, the Department can adopt 0.3% on entire credits amount of INR 6,39,55,000/-. assessee also pointed out that the assessment order is also marred from the vice of lack of jurisdiction u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act as per Ground Nos. 1 & 2 of its appeal. However, if the additions on merits are restricted to 0.3% in line with the assessment order of , in that event he is ready to withdraw Ground Nos. 1 & 2 of its appeal to save time from protracted litigation. DR for the Revenue relied upon the actions taken by the considered the rival submissions. It is the case of the assessee that total credit entries in the bank accounts of the struck off 6,39,55,000/- which wholly represents credits obtained . Out of such credits received from Jain Group were given to various entities who were either ultimate layer entity in the multiple layering process adopted in the accommodation business. The assessee company thus is apparently, a conduit company used by the Jain Bros. for routing the accommodation entries . It is further the case of the assessee that in ITA No.1691/Del/2024 Page | 6 The department itself in the impugned order partly accepts the above argument while estimating the income of appellant on the balance credit of adoption of net profit ratio of 8% is contrary to the net profit ratio of 0.3% accepted in the of appellant in succeeding assessment year i.e. AY 2012-13. 4.” submitted that it is fact on record through entity and engaged in assistance of providing accommodation entries. The only option available with the by taking nominal income by way of facilitation commission which in Assessment Year 2012-13 herefore, the Department, at best, assessee also pointed out that the assessment order e of lack of jurisdiction u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act as per Ground Nos. 1 & 2 of its appeal. However, if the additions on merits essment order of succeeding in that event he is ready to withdraw Ground Nos. 1 relied upon the actions taken by the the rival submissions. It is the case of the assessee that total credit entries in the bank accounts of the struck off represents credits obtained such credits received from Jain Group, INR who were either ultimate in the multiple layering process adopted in apparently, a ting the accommodation entries . It is further the case of the assessee that in identical facts, the AO has applied 0.3% on the credits received from Jain commission income vide assessment order dated 10.12.2019 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act relevant to Assessment Year 2012 Year 2012-13 was thus, assessed at INR 4, 16,10,00,000/- received in that year. 11. Having regard to the similarity of facts situation, there appears to be a force in the plea of the assessee for assessment of income @ received from Jain Group. The first appellate order is consequently, set aside and the additions made by the AO is modified to restrict the unaccounted income by applying 0.3% of the total credits received during the 12. Ground No.3 of the assessee’s appeal is thus, partly allowed. 13. Ground Nos. 1 & 2 of the assessee’s appeal are dismissed as withdrawn. 14. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/- (VIMAL KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER * Amit Kumar * Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ITA No. has applied 0.3% on the credits received from Jain sion income vide assessment order dated 10.12.2019 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act relevant to Assessment Year 2012-13. The income for Assessment 13 was thus, assessed at INR 4,83,000/- on the credits of INR in that year. Having regard to the similarity of facts situation, there appears to be a force in the plea of the assessee for assessment of income @ 0.3% received from Jain Group. The first appellate order is consequently, set aside and the additions made by the AO is modified to restrict the unaccounted income by applying 0.3% of the total credits received during the y 3 of the assessee’s appeal is thus, partly allowed. Ground Nos. 1 & 2 of the assessee’s appeal are dismissed as withdrawn. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 14th November, 202 (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI ITA No.1691/Del/2024 Page | 7 has applied 0.3% on the credits received from Jain Group as sion income vide assessment order dated 10.12.2019 passed u/s 143(3) 13. The income for Assessment on the credits of INR Having regard to the similarity of facts situation, there appears to be a .3% of the credits received from Jain Group. The first appellate order is consequently, set aside and the additions made by the AO is modified to restrict the unaccounted year. 3 of the assessee’s appeal is thus, partly allowed. Ground Nos. 1 & 2 of the assessee’s appeal are dismissed as withdrawn. , 2024. Sd/- PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI "