SHRI SHRIPAL VRAJLAL VORA,AHMEDABAD V. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

ITSSA 425/AHD/2019

AI Insights

The case involves multiple appeals by the Revenue and the assessee, Shripal Vrajlal Vora, against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) concerning the assessment years 2011-12 to 2017-18. The primary issues revolved around the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) following a survey and subsequent search operation at the assessee's premises, which uncovered unaccounted cash and documents related to accommodation entries. The Tribunal examined the legality of the additions made under section 153A of the Income Tax Act, particularly in the absence of incriminating material for certain years, and the appropriateness of the commission rates applied to the accommodation entries.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 25314 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 2 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 23-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 09-09-2019
• Other Referred Cases: CIT vs. Saumya Construction Pvt. Ltd., CIT vs. Kabul Chawla, CIT v. Abhishar Buildwell (P.) Ltd., Pr.CIT-4 v. Saumya Construction (P) Ltd., CIT vs. Kabul Chawla, Rohit Pravinchand Pannu vs. ACIT, Ashokkumar Durlabhji Thakkar, Sri Deepak Vithalsas Suchak
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A. P. SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: TUSHAR HEMANI; .; PARIMALSINH B. PARMAR
• Keywords: Set aside; Corroborative evidences; Income from undisclosed sources; Document seized; Documents seized; Retraction; TDS; Search and seizure; Accommodation entries; Loose papers
• Section: 147; 132; 153A; 131; 22; 13; 133A; 20

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T(SS).A. Nos. 473 to 479/Ahd/2019 (A.Ys.: 2011-12 to 2017-18) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad Vs. Shripal Vrajlal Vora, 204, Krushna Darshan Complex, Parimal Chowk, Waghwadi Road, Bhavnagar-40057 [PAN No.AELPV5937J] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) I.T(SS).A. Nos.425 to 427/Ahd/2019 (A.Ys.: 2015-16 to 2017-18) Shri Shripal Vrajlal Vora, 204, Krushna Darshan Complex, Parimal Chowk, Waghawadi Road, Bhavnagar-40057 Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad [PAN No.AELPV5937J] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.R. Respondent by: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT DR Date of Hearing 23.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement 06.12.2024 O R D E R PER BENCH: These 10 cross appeals are filed by the Revenue and the Assessee against the orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad, (in short “CIT(A)”), dated 02.07.2019 passed for the assessment years (A.Ys.) 2011-12 to 2017-18. Since common facts and IT(SS)A Nos. 473 to 479/Ahd/2019 & 425 to 427/Ahd/2019 ACIT vs. Shripal Vrajlal Vora & Shri Shripal Vrajlal Vora vs. DCIT Asst.Years –2011-12 to 2017-18 - 2– issues for consideration were involved in all the years under consideration before us, these appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue for the aforesaid A.Y.s were heard together and are being disposed of vide this common order. Brief facts of the case: 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a practicing Chartered Accountant. A survey u/s 133A of the act was carried out at the office premises of the assessee on 14.12.016, in the course of which cash of Rs. 29,05,280/- was found. Subsequently the survey action was converted into search u/s 132 of the Act on 16.12.2016 and the cash of Rs.29,05,280/- was seized. Subsequent to the search action proceeding u/s 153A of the act was initiated in the case of the assessee. From the documents found in the course of search it transpired that the assessee was engaged in providing accommodation entries in the form of unsecured loans. The AO had worked out the commission income @ 2.75% in respect of accommodation entries provided by the assessee and accordingly made the addition for commission income in the different years. The evidence for accommodation entry found in the course of search in the form of excel sheet was in respect of AY 2015-16 and AY 2016-17 only. However, the AO had estimated the commission income for all the years for which proceeding under section 153A of the Act were initiated. Further addition in respect of cash deposits in the bank accounts were also made. IT(SS)A Nos. 473 to 479/Ahd/2019 & 425 to 427/Ahd/2019 ACIT vs. Shripal Vrajlal Vora & Shri Shripal Vrajlal Vora vs. DCIT Asst.Years –2011-12 to 2017-18 - 3– 3. Aggrieved with the order of the AO, the assessee has filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority, which was decided by the Ld. CIT(A) vide the impugned orders. The Ld. CIT(A) held that no addition could have been made for the years pertaining to which no evidence was found in the course of search. On merits, he held that the assessee had provided accommodation entries and had earned commission income thereon. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) had upheld the addition of commission income only for the years for which evidence of providing accommodation entry was found in the course of search. Further the rate of commission of 2.75% as adopted by the AO was reduced to 1% by the Ld. CIT(A). Grounds taken in the appeal 4. The Revenue as well as assessee both are in appeal before us against the orders of the Ld. CIT(A). The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: IT(SS)A No. 473/Ahd/2019 (A.Y. 2011-12) “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that any addition during the assessment u/s.153A has to be confined to the incriminating material found during the course of search u/s. 132(1) of the Act, even though, there is no such stipulation in sec.153A of the Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that sec.153A requires a notice to be issued requiring the assessee to furnish his return of income in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years and to assess or re-assess the total income of those six assessment years, and that the scheme of assessment or re-assessment of -the total income of a person searched will be IT(SS)A Nos. 473 to 479/Ahd/2019 & 425 to 427/Ahd/2019 ACIT vs. Shripal Vrajlal Vora & Shri Shripal Vrajlal Vora vs. DCIT Asst.Years –2011-12 to 2017-18 - 4– brought to naught if no addition is allowed to be made for those six assessment years in the absence of any seized incriminating material. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that while computation of undisclosed income of the block period U/S.158BB was to be made on the basis of evidence found as a result of search or requisition of books of accounts, there is no such stipulation in sec.153A and sec.153BI specifically states that the provisions of Chapter-XIV-B, under which sec.158BB falls, would not be applied where a search was initiated u/s. 132 after 31/5/2003. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that assessment in relation to certain issues not related to the search and seizure may arise in any of the said six assessment years after the search u/s. 132 is conducted in the case of the assessee, and that if the interpretation of the ld. CIT(A) were to hold it will not be possible to assess such income in the 153A proceedings, while no other parallel proceedings to assess such other income can be initiated, leading to no possibility of assessing such other income, which could not have been the intention of the legislature. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions of Rs. 2,19,62,910 being commission income @ 2.75% on the accommodation entries. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that during the survey/search in the case of the assessee plethora of evidence found and seized in the form cash receipts (like promissory notes) bearing revenue stamp and signature evidencing receipt of funds, rubber stamps and deals of such paper concerns, SMS messages for fund transfer between assessee and his associates and admission by the assessee u/s 132(4) of the Act. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that corroborated evidences reflected the fact of accommodation entries through the 13 Surat based entities which were paper concerns and involvement of Shripal Vora in such accommodation entry business. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the A.O. IT(SS)A Nos. 473 to 479/Ahd/2019 & 425 to 427/Ahd/2019 ACIT vs. Shripal Vrajlal Vora & Shri Shripal Vrajlal Vora vs. DCIT Asst.Years –2011-12 to 2017-18 - 5– 9. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of the A.O. be restored to the above extent.” Grounds of appeal in IT(SS)A Nos. 474/Ahd/2019, 475/Ahd/2019 and 476/Ahd/2019 for A.Y. 2013-14, A.Y. 2012-13 and A.Y.2014-15 respectively, are same as in IT(SS)A No. 473/Ahd/2019 (except the amounts mentioned in Ground No.-5 of each appeal). 5. Grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue in IT(SS)A No.477/Ahd/2019 for A.Y. 2015-16 are as under: IT(SS)A No. 477/Ahd/2019 (A.Y. 2015-16) “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the addition for Rs.9,51,36,705/- to Rs. 91 lacs (Rs.91 crore x 1%) being commission income on accommodation entries. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not taking into account all the debit entries in the bank account of 36 concerns amounting to Rs.345,95,16,540/-. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the commission @ 1% instead of @ 2.75% of the accommodation entries. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the A.O. 5. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of the A.O. restored to the above extent.” Grounds of appeal in IT(SS)A No.478/Ahd/2019 for A.Y. 2016-17 are same as in IT(SS)A No. 477/Ahd/2019 (except the amounts mentioned in Ground No.-1 and 2). IT(SS)A Nos. 473 to 479/Ahd/2019 & 425 to 427/Ahd/2019 ACIT vs. Shripal Vrajlal Vora & Shri Shripal Vrajlal Vora vs. DCIT Asst.Years –2011-12 to 2017-18 - 6– 6. Grounds of appeal in IT(SS)A No.479/Ahd/2019 for A.Y. 2017-18 filed by the Revenue are as under: IT(SS)A No. 479/Ahd/2019 (A.Y. 2017-18) “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that any addition during the assessment u/s.153A has to be confined to the incriminating material found during the course of search u/s. 132(1) of the Act, even though, there is no such stipulation in sec.153A of the Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that sec.153A requires a notice to be issued requiring the assessee to furnish his return of income in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years and to assess or re-assess the total income of those six assessment years, and that the scheme of assessment or re-assessment of -the total income of a person searched will be brought to naught if no addition is allowed to be made for those six assessment years in the absence of any seized incriminating material. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that while computation of undisclosed income of the block period U/S.158BB was to be made on the basis of evidence found as a result of search or requisition of books of accounts, there is no such stipulation in sec.153A and sec.153BI specifically states that the provisions of Chapter-XIV-B, under which sec.158BB falls, would not be applied where a search was initiated u/s. 132 after 31/5/2003. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that assessment in relation to certain issues not related to the search and seizure may arise in any of the said six assessment years after the search u/s. 132 is conducted in the case of the assessee, and that if the interpretation of the ld. CIT(A) were to hold it will not be possible to assess such income in the 153A proceedings, while no other parallel proceedings to assess such other income can be initiated, leading to no possibility of assessing such other income, which could not have been the intention of the legislature. IT(SS)A Nos. 473 to 479/Ahd/2019 & 425 to 427/Ahd/2019 ACIT vs. Shripal Vrajlal Vora & Shri Shripal Vrajlal Vora vs. DCIT Asst.Years –2011-12 to 2017-18 - 7– 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions of Rs. 7,05,10,337/- being commission income @ 2.75% on the accommodation entries. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that during the survey/search in the case of the assessee plethora of evidence found and seized in the form cash receipts (like promissory notes) bearing revenue stamp and signature evidencing receipt of funds, rubber stamps and deals of such paper concerns, SMS messages for fund transfer between assessee and his associates and admission by the assessee u/s 132(4) of the Act. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that corroborated evidences reflected the fact of accommodation entries through the 13 Surat based entities which were paper concerns and involvement of Shripal Vora in such accommodation entry business. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the A.O. 9. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of the A.O. be restored to the above extent.” 7. The grounds taken by the assessee in IT(SS)A No. 425/Ahd/2019 (A.Y. 2015-16) are as under: IT(SS)A No. 425/Ahd/2019 (A.Y. 2015-16) “1. In law and in the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in making addition of Rs. 91,00,000/- by estimating commission @ 1% on the alleged accommodation entries of Rs. 91 crores, when no such addition is called for more particularly when such estimation is not supported by seized material. The addition confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) is required to be deleted. 2. In law and in the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case, even if commission income is required to be estimated then it should be restricted to Rs. 3,00,000/- on total transaction of Rs. 29.67 crores, as accepted IT(SS)A Nos. 473 to 479/Ahd/2019 & 425 to 427/Ahd/2019 ACIT vs. Shripal Vrajlal Vora & Shri Shripal Vrajlal Vora vs. DCIT Asst.Years –2011-12 to 2017-18 - 8– by the appellant in his statement recorded u/s 131 of the Act dated 14/12/2016 and u/s 132(4) of the Act dated 16/12/2016. 3. In law and in the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in estimating commission income @ 1% without appreciating that appellant is his statement has accepted the rate of commission @ 0.1% or Rs. 100 per Rs. 1,00,000/-. 4. In the law and in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing telescoping of source based addition made in the impugned order against the disclosure of Res. 29,05,280/- made by the Appellant under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojna, 2016 (PMGKY). 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or withdraw any ground or grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in IT(SS)A No.426/Ahd/2019 for A.Y. 2016-17 are same as in IT(SS)A No. 425/Ahd/2019 (except the amount mentioned in Ground No.-1). 8. The grounds taken by the assessee in IT(SS)A No. 427/Ahd/2019 for the A.Y. 2017-18 are as under: IT(SS)A No. 427/Ahd/2019 (A.Y. 2017-18) “1. In law and in facts and circumstances of the appellant’s case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of cash deposit of Rs. 79,02,500/- under section 69A, where no such addition is called for. The addition is liable to be deleted. 2. In law and in facts and circumstances of the appellant’s case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that addition of cash deposited totaling to Rs. 27,10,000/- cannot be made when blank cheques of such account holders have not been found from the premises of the Appellant. IT(SS)A Nos. 473 to 479/Ahd/2019 & 425 to 427/Ahd/2019 ACIT vs. Shripal Vrajlal Vora & Shri Shripal Vrajlal Vora vs. DCIT Asst.Years –2011-12 to 2017-18 - 9– 3. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the case, to avoid the double taxation of the same amount, Assessing Officer may be directed to allow telescoping of source based addition made in the impugned order against the disclosure of Rs. 29,05,280 made by the Appellant under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojna, 2016 (PMGKY). 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or withdraw any ground or grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 9. We will first take A.Y. 2011-12 as the lead year and discuss the grounds taken by the Revenue in detail and the appeal pertaining to this year is IT(SS)A No.473/Ahd/2019. The decision for this year will also be applicable to A.Ys. 2012-13 to 2014-15, as grounds for all these years are common. Thereafter, we will consider the grounds taken by the Revenue as well as the assessee in the A.Y. 2015-16 in IT(SS)A No.477/Ahd/2019 & IT(SS)A & No.425/Ahd/2019 respectively. The decision for this year will be applicable to A.Ys. 2016-17 as well, as the grounds of the two years are common. Finally, we will adjudicate the additional grounds taken by the Revenue and the assessee in the appeals for the A.Y. 2017-18. IT(SS)A No.473/Ahd/2019 (A.Y. 2011-12) 10. The first four grounds taken by the Revenue in this appeal are legal in nature. In the course of search loose papers/evidences found pertained to transactions from 1st April 2014 onwards. In the course of survey, the assessee had made a statement that he had earned unaccounted commission of Rs.3,00,000/- on transactions with Globe 200 companies which was pertaining to F.Y. 2015-16 and not related to any earlier assessment years. IT(SS)A Nos. 473 to 479/Ahd/2019 & 425 to 427/Ahd/2019 ACIT vs. Shripal Vrajlal Vora & Shri Shripal Vrajlal Vora vs. DCIT Asst.Years –2011-12 to 2017-18 - 10– In the course of search also no evidence was found that the assessee had earned any unaccounted income in respect of any accommodation entry in the form of unsecured loans arranged by him during A.Ys. 2011-12 to 2014-15. In view of these facts the Ld. CIT(A) had held that the two excel sheets found during the search and pertaining to A.Y. 2015-16 and A.Y. 2016-17 couldn’t have been considered as incriminating material for the earlier assessment years. Further that no admission was made by the assessee that he had earned any commission during earlier years. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) had held that in the absence of any incriminating material no addition could have been made in respect of commission income in the A.Y. 2011-12 which was an unabated year. In this regard he had relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Saumya Construction Pvt. Ltd. reported in 387 ITR 529 as well as certain other decisions. 11. Sri A P Singh, the Ld. CIT-DR appearing for the Revenue explained that in the course of assessment proceeding 36 bank accounts of Surat and Mumbai based entities were identified through which accommodation entries were provided by the assessee. The details of these bank accounts are enumerated at para-4.6.1 of the assessment order. The Ld. CIT-DR explained that the total debits and credits in these bank accounts was to the extent of Rs.5315,11,67,897/- and Rs.5204,88,32,036/- respectively and which pertained to A.Y. 2011-12 to 2017-18. Accordingly, the total payment made to outside parties in the form of accommodation entries IT(SS)A Nos. 473 to 479/Ahd/2019 & 425 to 427/Ahd/2019 ACIT vs. Shripal Vrajlal Vora & Shri Shripal Vrajlal Vora vs. DCIT Asst.Years –2011-12 to 2017-18 - 11– during A.Y. 2011-12 was Rs.79,86,51,279/- on which the AO had estimated commission income of Rs. 2,19,62,910/- @ 2.75%. The Ld. CIT-DR submitted that this addition was made on the basis of the name of the entities appearing in the seized excel sheets found in the search as well as on the basis of further inquiries conducted by the AO in the course of assessment proceeding. Under the circumstances, the Ld. CIT(A) was not correct to hold that the addition was not based on any incriminating material. According to the Ld. CIT-DR the provision of section 153A of the Act does not stipulate that the addition has to be confined only to the incriminating material found in the course of search. He submitted that the evidences collected in the course of assessment proceeding can also be utilized for the purpose of making the addition. 12. Per contra, Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate appearing for the assessee submitted that no incriminating material was found in the course of search at the premises of the assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2011-12. The seized documents in the form of excel sheet pertaining to AY 2015-16 and 2016-17 only were found in the course of search. Further the assessee had also not admitted having earned any commission income for the earlier years. Therefore, the addition made by the AO in respect of commission income for AY 2011-12 was not based on any incriminating material found from the premises of the assessee during the search. He submitted that in the case of unabated/completed assessment no addition can be made in the IT(SS)A Nos. 473 to 479/Ahd/2019 & 425 to 427/Ahd/2019 ACIT vs. Shripal Vrajlal Vora & Shri Shripal Vrajlal Vora vs. DCIT Asst.Years –2011-12 to 2017-18 - 12– absence of any incriminating material found during the search. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the following decisions: i. CIT v. Abhishar Buildwell (P.) Ltd., [2023] 149 taxmann.com 399/293 Taxman 141/454 ITR 212 (SC) ii. Pr.CIT-4 v. Saumya Construction (P) Ltd., (2016) 387 ITR 529 (Guj-HC) iii. CIT vs. Kabul Chawla, [2016] 380 ITR 573 (Del HC) 13. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell (supra) has held that no addition can be made in respect of completed assessments in the absence of any incriminating material. The conclusion recorded by the Apex Court in Para 14 of the order in the case of Abhisar Buildwell (supra) is found to be as under: 14. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, it is concluded as under: (i) that in case of search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A, the AO assumes the jurisdiction for block assessment under section 153A; (ii) all pending assessments/reassessments shall stand abated; (iii) in case any incriminating material is found/unearthed, even, in case of unabated/completed assessments, the AO would assume the jurisdiction to assess or reassess the 'total income' taking into consideration the incriminating material unearthed during the search and the other material available with the AO including the income declared in the returns; and IT(SS)A Nos. 473 to 479/Ahd/2019 & 425 to 427/Ahd/2019 ACIT vs. Shripal Vrajlal Vora & Shri Shripal Vrajlal Vora vs. DCIT Asst.Years –2011-12 to 2017-18 - 13– (iv) in case no incriminating material is unearthed during the search, the AO cannot assess or reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A of the Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened by the AO in exercise of powers under sections 147/148 of the Act, subject to fulfilment of the conditions as envisaged/mentioned under sections 147/148 of the Act and those powers are saved. (Emphasis supplied) 14. The Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held that the AO would assume the jurisdiction to assess or re-assessee the “total income” by taking into consideration the incriminating material unearthed during the search and the ‘other material’ available with the AO, including the income declared in the returns. The ratio of the judgement is that the incriminating material found during the search gives the AO the jurisdiction to assess or reassess the ‘total income’ u/s 153A of the Act of the unabated/completed assessment. In the absence of any incriminating material unearthed during the search, the AO would not have the jurisdiction to proceed in the unabated/completed year(s), only on the basis of other material. In the present case no incriminating material pertaining to A.Ys. 2011-12 to 2014-15 were found in the course of search IT(SS)A Nos. 473 to 479/Ahd/2019 & 425 to 427/Ahd/2019 ACIT vs. Shripal Vrajlal Vora & Shri Shripal Vrajlal Vora vs. DCIT Asst.Years –2011-12 to 2017-18 - 14– and in the absence of any such material, the AO could not have assumed jurisdiction to proceed in the matter. It is only when the jurisdiction is assumed by the AO on the strength of incriminating material found during the search, the AO can assess or reassess the ‘total income’ of the unabated/completed year on the basis of incriminating material found during the search and the ‘other material’ as available with him. Since no incriminating material pertaining to AY 2011-12 was found in the course of the search, the AO could not have proceeded to complete the assessment of this unabated year u/s 153A of the Act. 15. In the present case the AO had collected certain other material in the course of assessment proceedings by making enquiries in respect of bank account of 36 concerns. Such information can be considered as ‘other material’ collected in the course of assessment proceeding. However, this other material could have been utilized only if any incriminating material was found in the course of search, on the basis of which addition was first made. In the absence of any incriminating material found in the course of search, no addition could have been made on the basis of the other materials collected in the course of assessment proceeding. As clarified by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the completed/unabated IT(SS)A Nos. 473 to 479/Ahd/2019 & 425 to 427/Ahd/2019 ACIT vs. Shripal Vrajlal Vora & Shri Shripal Vrajlal Vora vs. DCIT Asst.Years –2011-12 to 2017-18 - 15– assessment can be reopened on the basis of such ‘other materials’ under sections 147/148 of the Act, subject to fulfilment of the conditions as envisaged/mentioned in those sections. Sine no incriminating material pertaining to this year was found in the course of search, the additions on the basis of ‘other materials’ available with the AO could have been made in the proceeding u/s 147 of the Act and not in the proceeding u/s 153A of the Act. We, therefore, are in agreement with the decision of Ld. CIT(A) that the addition made by the AO was beyond the scope of section 153A of the Act, in the absence of any incriminating material pertaining to this year found in the course of search. 16. In view the above facts and the declaration of law on the issue by the Hon’ble Apex Court, we do not find any merit in the grounds as taken by the Revenue. Accordingly, the grounds number 1 to 4 taken by the Revenue are dismissed. 17. The next three grounds pertain to merit of addition of Rs.2,19,62,910/- being commission income @ 2.75% in respect of accommodation entries provided by the assessee. Since, this is a case of unabated assessment, we have to first consider whether this addition was based on any incriminating material found in the course of search. In the assessment order, the AO IT(SS)A Nos. 473 to 479/Ahd/2019 & 425 to 427/Ahd/2019 ACIT vs. Shripal Vrajlal Vora & Shri Shripal Vrajlal Vora vs. DCIT Asst.Years –2011-12 to 2017-18 - 16– had referred about incriminating evidences found in the course of search, which are briefly discussed hereunder: (i) In the course of search, 15 original receipts were found from the office premise of the assessee, which were written in Gujarati with details of amounts taken by the concerns as mentioned therein, which were inventorized as Annexure A-1. These receipts were undated but signed & stamped and the Directors/partners of the concerns had acknowledged the receipt of the amount. A copy of these documents are reproduced in the assessment order. These 15 receipts were in respect of 13 concerns who had received the cash mentioned therein and the total amount of the cash receipt as per these documents was Rs.29.67 Crores. In the course of statement recorded during search and survey, the assessee had explained that these documents were cash receipts of Surat based entities and that the transactions appearing in these receipts were between 13 entities and M/s. Globe 200 Sourcing Pvt. Ltd. (Globe), a Mumbai based company. According to the assessee, he had only acted as a commission agent in these transactions and explained that the sum of Rs.29.67 Crores represented unaccounted fund of Globe, which was routed back in its books of accounts through Surat based entities in the form of unsecured loans. The assessee had further admitted that he had IT(SS)A Nos. 473 to 479/Ahd/2019 & 425 to 427/Ahd/2019 ACIT vs. Shripal Vrajlal Vora & Shri Shripal Vrajlal Vora vs. DCIT Asst.Years –2011-12 to 2017-18 - 17– received commission of Rs.3 Lakhs in these transactions, which was not recorded in his books of accounts. The AO had also given a finding that this accommodation entry transaction of Rs.29.67 Crores was carried out in the A.Y. 2016-17. (ii) During the course of search, original stamps (seals), income tax returns and images of cheques & PAN Cards etc. pertaining to transactions related to Surat based entities were also found and seized in the form of digital data. A copy of this digital data is reproduced in the assessment order. (iii) The data backup of Sony Phone of the assessee was taken in the course of search and the text messages were analyzed. It was evident from these text messages that the assessee was actively giving and taking instructions to execute the transactions through 13 Surat based entities to Globe and other beneficiaries. The excerpts of messages pertaining to these Surat based entities have been reproduced in the assessment order. (iv) In the course of assessment, enquiries were conducted at the address of Surat based entities and it was found that none of the companies were functioning at the given addresses. The result of enquiries in respect of these companies conducted through ADIT, Surat is summarized in the assessment order IT(SS)A Nos. 473 to 479/Ahd/2019 & 425 to 427/Ahd/2019 ACIT vs. Shripal Vrajlal Vora & Shri Shripal Vrajlal Vora vs. DCIT Asst.Years –2011-12 to 2017-18 - 18– which confirmed that these companies were only paper companies and that their affairs were managed by the assessee himself. The credentials of these companies available on ITD database was also analyzed and on the basis of all available evidences the AO had concluded that the assessee was part of systematic business of tax evasion involving Globe and other beneficiaries through the accommodation entries given by 13 Surat based concerns. (v) In the course of search, digital data in the form of two Excel sheets “Shripal Vora 01 Apr.2014 to 31 March, 2015” and “last Hisab 15-16.xls” were found and seized from the assessee. These Excel sheets have been reproduced in the assessment order, which contains details of company name, beneficiary company name, closing balance, interest, TDS amount and net amount. From the analysis of excel sheet data, the AO found that 44 companies (whose name appeared in Column No.2) had given unsecured loan to different concerns (appearing as beneficiaries in Column No.3) and the total amount of transaction as per these Excel sheets was Rs.91,00,25,000/- and Rs.91,37,85,000/- pertaining to F.Ys. 2014-15 and 2015-16 respectively. It was found that the name of 13 entities pertaining to which receipts were seized was also appearing in the Excel sheets. The AO, therefore, concluded IT(SS)A Nos. 473 to 479/Ahd/2019 & 425 to 427/Ahd/2019 ACIT vs. Shripal Vrajlal Vora & Shri Shripal Vrajlal Vora vs. DCIT Asst.Years –2011-12 to 2017-18 - 19– that all the 44 concerns whose name was appearing in the Excel sheets were providing accommodation entries of unsecured loan to Globe 200 and other beneficiaries. 18. In the course of assessment, the AO collected details of bank accounts of Surat & Mumbai based entities through which the accommodation entries were provided. The details of bank accounts of 36 concerns (out of 44 appearing in the excel sheet) are enlisted in the assessment order. From the bank account of these 36 concerns total debit and credit entries to the extent of Rs.5315,11,67,897/- and Rs.52,04,88,32,036/- respectively pertaining to A.Ys. 2011-12 to 2017-18 was worked out by the AO. Further, the AO applied commission income @ 2.5% of accommodation entries on the debit entries in the bank account of these 36 concerns and worked out the year-wise commission income of the assessee as under: AY Payments made to outside parties (DEBIT*) (IN RS.) Commission income @ 2.75% of accommodation entry given 2011-12 798551279 2,19,62,910 2012-13 10746899042 29,55,39,724 2013-14 18089508914 49,74,61,495 2014-15 13646526537 37,52,79,480 2015-16 3459516540 9,51,36,705 2016-17 3846053314 10,57,66,466 2017-18 2564012272 7,05,10,337 Total 53151167897 146,16,57,117 IT(SS)A Nos. 473 to 479/Ahd/2019 & 425 to 427/Ahd/2019 ACIT vs. Shripal Vrajlal Vora & Shri Shripal Vrajlal Vora vs. DCIT Asst.Years –2011-12 to 2017-18 - 20– Accordingly, an addition of Rs.2,19,62,910/- in respect of undisclosed commission income for this year was made by the AO. Since, the AO had considered the debit entries of bank account of all 36 concerns for making this addition, no separate addition was made in respect of accommodation entries as per Excel sheet seized from the premises of the assessee in the A.Ys.2015-16 & 2016-17. 19. It is, thus, found that all the loose papers/evidences found in the course of search pertained to transactions from 1st April, 2014 onwards. The original receipts, images of cheques, text messages in the Mobile phone and the two Excel sheets; all pertain to period from 1st April, 2014 onwards and no evidence pertaining to A.Ys. 2011-12 to 2014-15 was found in the course of search. In fact, no evidence was found during the course of search to substantiate the earning of commission by the assessee in the first 4 years i.e. from A.Y. 2011-12 to A.Y. 2014-15. The two Excel sheets having total transaction of Rs.91 Crores and Rs.91.37 Crores pertained to A.Y. 2015-16 and A.Y. 2016-17 respectively and cannot be considered as incriminating material for the earlier assessment years. The assessee in his statement had admitted earning of commission income of Rs.3 Lakhs in respect of accommodation entries of Rs.29.67 crores provided to Globe companies, which was pertaining to A.Y. IT(SS)A Nos. 473 to 479/Ahd/2019 & 425 to 427/Ahd/2019 ACIT vs. Shripal Vrajlal Vora & Shri Shripal Vrajlal Vora vs. DCIT Asst.Years –2011-12 to 2017-18 - 21– 2016-17. The AO has extrapolated the entries in the bank account of 36 concerns whose name appeared in 2 Excel sheets to the earlier assessment years. Such extrapolation is based on the presumption that the assessee was controlling the bank accounts of all those 36 entities as listed in the assessment order and whose name appeared in the excel sheets. Thus, neither any evidence was found in the course of search that the assessee was managing the affairs of all the 36 concerns whose bank account transactions have been adopted by the AO to work out the commission income, nor any such evidence was brought on record by the AO in the course of assessment proceeding. 20. The incriminating evidence found during the search only substantiates that the assessee was providing accommodation entries through these entities and was earning commission income to the extent as appearing in the excel sheets. There was no evidence found during the search to justify extrapolation of accommodation entries and earning of commission income therefrom in the earlier years. The evidences found in the course of search were in respect of 13 Surat based entities and no evidence in respect of the other entities were found in the course of search. Merely because the name of 13 Surat based entities were appearing in the Excel sheets, it doesn’t establish that the assessee was managing the affairs of all 44 entities IT(SS)A Nos. 473 to 479/Ahd/2019 & 425 to 427/Ahd/2019 ACIT vs. Shripal Vrajlal Vora & Shri Shripal Vrajlal Vora vs. DCIT Asst.Years –2011-12 to 2017-18 - 22– whose names were appearing in the same Excel sheets. In the course of search, 15 undated original receipts signed and stamped by only 13 entities for loan aggregating to Rs.29.67 Crores were seized. Merely because the receipts of 13 entities were seized from the assessee, it cannot lead to the conclusion that the assessee was managing and operating all the 44 companies whose names appeared in the Excel sheets. Had it been so, the evidences in the form of original receipts, signed cheques/blank cheque book, PAN, return of income, books/accounts, bank statements, seals/rubber stamps & other documents pertaining to other companies should have been found at the premises of the assessee. Further, the AO has also not brought any evidence on record to substantiate that the assessee was managing the affairs of all the entities (other than 13 Surat based entities) whose names appeared in the Excel sheets. Since, no evidence was found in the course of search to substantiate the earning of commission income by the assessee in respect of earlier years, no addition could have been made in the A.Ys. 2011-12 to 2014-15. Thus addition of Rs.2,19,62,910/- being commission income @ 2.75% in respect of accommodation entries in the A.Y. 2011-12 was not based on any incriminating material found in the course of search. We have already held earlier that no addition in completed/unabated year could have been made in the absence IT(SS)A Nos. 473 to 479/Ahd/2019 & 425 to 427/Ahd/2019 ACIT vs. Shripal Vrajlal Vora & Shri Shripal Vrajlal Vora vs. DCIT Asst.Years –2011-12 to 2017-18 - 23– of any incriminating material found in the course of search. On merits also, no such addition was called for. Since, the addition made by the AO is not only legally unsustainable but on merit also no addition could have been made in this year, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the commission income for this year, is upheld. The grounds taken by the Revenue on the merits of the addition, are dismissed. 21. The other grounds taken by the Revenue are general in nature and need not be adjudicated. In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. IT(SS)A No.474 to 476/Ahd/2019 (A.Ys. 2012-12 to 2014-15) 22. The facts involved in IT(SS)A No.474 to 476/Ahd/2019 pertaining to A.Ys. 2012-13 to 2014-15 are identical to IT(SS)A No.473/Ahd/2019 and the grounds taken by the Revenue in these years are common, except the quantum of addition. For the A.Ys. 2012-13 to 2014- 15 as well, no incriminating material was found in the course of search. Therefore, the finding of IT(SS)A No.473/Ahd/2019 on merits as well, is applicable mutatis mutandis in these years. As the facts are identical, the decision taken in IT(SS)A No.473/Ahd/2019 is applicable to all these appeals. Accordingly, the appeals of the Revenue in IT(SS)A No.474 to 476/Ahd/2019 are all dismissed. IT(SS)A Nos. 473 to 479/Ahd/2019 & 425 to 427/Ahd/2019 ACIT vs. Shripal Vrajlal Vora & Shri Shripal Vrajlal Vora vs. DCIT Asst.Years –2011-12 to 2017-18 - 24– IT(SS)A No.477/Ahd/2019 & IT(SS)A No.425/Ahd/2019 (A.Y. 2015- 16) 23. These two appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee respectively pertain to A.Y. 2015-16. The grievance of the Revenue is that the Ld. CIT(A) was not correct in restricting the addition in respect of commission income of accommodation entries @ 1% of Rs.91 Crores only. According to the Revenue, the Ld. CIT(A) had erred in disregarding the total accommodation entries of Rs.345,95,16,540/- on the basis of bank account of 36 concerns as worked out by the AO. Further, the Ld. CIT(A) was also not correct in restricting the commission @ 2.75% as adopted by the AO to @ 1% only. On the other hand, the assessee has challenged the addition of commission income @1% of accommodation entry of Rs.91 crore as confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). According to the assessee, commission of Rs.3 Lakhs only on total transaction of Rs.29.67 crores was admitted in the statements recorded during survey and search operation and by adopting this rate the commission should have been estimated @ 0.1% only. 24. Shri A. P. Singh, Ld. CIT. DR. has taken us through the evidences found in the course of search viz. 15 original receipts, statement of the assessee during survey and search IT(SS)A Nos. 473 to 479/Ahd/2019 & 425 to 427/Ahd/2019 ACIT vs. Shripal Vrajlal Vora & Shri Shripal Vrajlal Vora vs. DCIT Asst.Years –2011-12 to 2017-18 - 25– operation, digital data from the assessee’s laptop, extract of SMS from assessee’s mobile, entries in the 2 Excel sheets seized from the assessee, enquiries conducted by the AO in the course of assessment, non-existence of entities etc. These evidences have been discussed earlier in para-17 of this order. The Ld. CIT. DR submitted that there was no dispute to the fact that 2 Excel sheets were found in the course of search which contained entries of Rs.91 Crores and Rs.91.38 Crores pertaining to A.Ys. 2015-16 & 2016-17 respectively. With reference to these excel sheets, the AO had conducted further enquiries and bank accounts of 36 concerns which were involved in providing accommodation entries were identified. The AO had worked out the total accommodation entries provided by the assessee on the basis of bank accounts of those 36 concerns, which was to the extent of Rs.345,95,16,540/- during the A.Y. 2015-16 and on which commission @ 2.75% was estimated by the AO. The Ld. CIT.DR submitted that in view of the evidences as found in the course of search and as collected by the AO in the course of assessment proceeding and also the findings as recorded in the assessment order, the Ld. CIT(A) was not correct in disregarding the total accommodation entry of Rs.345.95 Crores and restricting the addition in respect of accommodation entry of Rs.91 Crores only as appearing in the Excel sheet. The Ld. CIT.DR further IT(SS)A Nos. 473 to 479/Ahd/2019 & 425 to 427/Ahd/2019 ACIT vs. Shripal Vrajlal Vora & Shri Shripal Vrajlal Vora vs. DCIT Asst.Years –2011-12 to 2017-18 - 26– submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) was also not correct in restricting the addition for commission income @1% particularly when evidence for earning of commission income at higher rate was found in the course of search. 25. Per contra, Shri Tushar Hemani, Ld. Senior Counsel submitted that there was nothing on record to even remotely demonstrate that the assessee was controlling and managing 36 concerns, whose bank accounts were utilized for working out the total accommodation entries. He submitted that merely because 44 entities as appearing in the excel sheets included 13 Surat based entities through which accommodation entries of Rs.29.67 Crores only was provided to Globe, it cannot be presumed that all other 36 entities were also controlled and managed by the assessee. Further that no independent enquiry was carried out by the AO nor any evidence was brought on record to establish that all those 36 entities were controlled and managed by the assessee. He further submitted that in the course of search, no evidence was found for earning of commission income except commission income of Rs.3 Lacs earned in relation to transactions with Globe, as admitted by the assessee himself. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) was not correct in confirming the commission income in respect of transactions of Rs.91 Crores as appearing in Excel sheets. He further submitted that the transaction with Globe pertained to A.Y. IT(SS)A Nos. 473 to 479/Ahd/2019 & 425 to 427/Ahd/2019 ACIT vs. Shripal Vrajlal Vora & Shri Shripal Vrajlal Vora vs. DCIT Asst.Years –2011-12 to 2017-18 - 27– 2016-17, on the basis of which extrapolation of commission income for other years was not permissible. The Ld. Sr. Counsel explained that the 2 Excel sheets had nothing to do with accommodation entries but the same were forwarded to the assessee by his clients for verification / evaluation of working of TDS. Therefore, no addition could have been made on the basis of these Excel sheets. As regarding estimation of commission income @ 1%, the Ld. Senior Counsel submitted that the assessee earned commission in respect of transaction with Globe @ 0.1% only. Considering this fact, the commission of 1% as estimated by the Ld. CIT(A) was substantially on higher side. He further submitted that Ld. CIT(A) had given a finding that commission in similar transactions as confirmed by various Courts was in the range of 0.2% to 0.5% only. In view of this fact, the Ld. CIT(A) was not correct in estimating commission income @ 1%. He further submitted that the coordinate bench is this Tribunal had estimated commission at much lower rate in identical transactions in various other cases. 26. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. In the course of statements recorded during survey & search operation, the assessee had admitted earning of commission income of Rs.3 lakh on total transaction of Rs.29.67 Crores pertaining to 13 Surat based entities. However, this admission IT(SS)A Nos. 473 to 479/Ahd/2019 & 425 to 427/Ahd/2019 ACIT vs. Shripal Vrajlal Vora & Shri Shripal Vrajlal Vora vs. DCIT Asst.Years –2011-12 to 2017-18 - 28– was not backed by any documentary evidence found during survey/search. In the course of search, 2 Excel sheets were found as per which accommodation entries in respect of unsecured loan was provided through 44 companies, the list of which is given in the assessment order. These 44 companies included 13 Surat based companies, the transactions pertaining to which were admitted by the assessee. The total transactions as per Excel sheets in respect of 44 concerns was Rs.91 Crores for A.Y. 2015-16. Since the assessee had admitted earning of commission income in respect of 13 concerns which were part of total 44 concerns appearing in the Excel sheets, the Ld. CIT(A) was correct in his conclusion that the assessee had earned commission income in respect of total transaction of Rs.91 Crores pertaining to these 44 concerns, as per the excel sheet. 27. The contention of the assessee is that this document was forwarded to him by his client(s) for verification of TDS. This contention of the assessee is found to be baseless and a mere ruse to camouflage the real nature of the transaction. The assessee has not explained as to who had forwarded these Excel sheets to him. No evidence has been brought on record to substantiate that these Excel sheets did not belong to the assessee but pertained to third party. Further, the amount of IT(SS)A Nos. 473 to 479/Ahd/2019 & 425 to 427/Ahd/2019 ACIT vs. Shripal Vrajlal Vora & Shri Shripal Vrajlal Vora vs. DCIT Asst.Years –2011-12 to 2017-18 - 29– TDS as mentioned in these Excel Sheets is found to be misnomer. This is evident from the amount of interest and the TDS amount, as appearing in these Excel sheets. The first entry in the Excel sheet mentions interest amount of Rs.8,607/- on which TDS amount mentioned is Rs.4,379/-. In the second entry, on interest amount of Rs.9,275/-, the TDS amount is Rs.6,500/-. It is, thus, found that the amount of TDS is more than 50% of interest amount, which can never be correct. There is no provision in the Act which requires TDS to be deducted @ 50% or more. The similar trend of TDS amount being more than 50% of the interest amount is found in most of the entries in the excel sheets. It is, thus, evident that the ‘TDS amount’ mentioned in the Excel sheet is only a wrong or incorrect nomenclature in order to mislead the actual nature of transaction. In view of this fact, the contention of the assessee that the Excel sheets pertained to third party and was forwarded to him for verification of TDS compliance cannot be held as correct. Since this document was found from the possession of the assessee the same was rightly considered as belonging to the assessee. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) was correct in holding that all the entries in the excel sheets pertained to and was belonging to the assessee. Therefore, the order of Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee had earned commission income in respect of accommodation entry of Rs. 91 crores in A.Y. IT(SS)A Nos. 473 to 479/Ahd/2019 & 425 to 427/Ahd/2019 ACIT vs. Shripal Vrajlal Vora & Shri Shripal Vrajlal Vora vs. DCIT Asst.Years –2011-12 to 2017-18 - 30– 2015-16 as per the Excel sheet is upheld. The ground taken by the assessee in this respect is dismissed. 28. On the other hand, the contention of the Revenue is that the Ld. CIT(A) was not correct in restricting the commission income on transaction of Rs.91 Crores only as per Excel sheets, when the AO had worked out the total transaction of Rs.345.95 crores on the basis of entries in the bank account of 36 concerns. Merely because name of 44 concerns was appearing in the Excel sheets, it cannot be concluded that the assessee was managing the affairs of all these concerns and that all the transactions appearing in the bank account of these concerns were accommodation entries provided by the assessee. If so, the assessee would have maintained records for all such transactions and there was no necessity to maintain the record for accommodation entry to the extent of Rs.91 Crores only as appearing in the Excel sheets. On the basis of name of 36 entities appearing in the Excel sheets, the AO had presumed that all the transactions appearing in the bank accounts of those entities were accommodation entries provided by the assessee. As already discussed earlier, no supporting evidence in this regard was found in the course of search, neither any material to substantiate this allegation was brought on record by the AO in the course of assessment proceedings. The Ld. CIT(A) has IT(SS)A Nos. 473 to 479/Ahd/2019 & 425 to 427/Ahd/2019 ACIT vs. Shripal Vrajlal Vora & Shri Shripal Vrajlal Vora vs. DCIT Asst.Years –2011-12 to 2017-18 - 31– recorded a detailed finding in this regard as to why the bank account transactions of 36 companies cannot be considered as accommodation entry provided by the assessee and we fully agree with those findings. Therefore, the grounds taken by the Revenue regarding the quantum of accommodation entry provided by the assessee, on which commission income was worked out, is also rejected. 29. As regarding rate of commission, the AO has given a finding that the rate of commission was between 20 to 25 paise per month / Rs.100/- which worked out to 2.4% to 3%. The AO has relied upon certain entries in the Excel sheets and observed that the assessee has used the word ‘interest’ instead of ‘commission’. In this regard, he has relied upon the following evidences in the Excel sheets, as reproduced in the assessment order: S.No. File Name Path in the digital data Rate of interest (Commission) As per Annexure 1 Interest hisab of anilbhai Hard Disk:\\Extracted Data\\Forensic Images \\ Data of SHRIPAL VOHRA PC\\Deleted Files\\Excel Files @21:17 paisa per month / Rs.100 i.e. 2.5404% yearly and @ 22 paisa per month/Rs. 100 i.e. 2.64% yearty Annexure-D1 2 Mail to anilbhai Hard Disk:\\Extracted Data\\Forensic Images\\ Data of @22 paisa per month/Rs.100 i.e. 2.64% yearly Annexure-D2 IT(SS)A Nos. 473 to 479/Ahd/2019 & 425 to 427/Ahd/2019 ACIT vs. Shripal Vrajlal Vora & Shri Shripal Vrajlal Vora vs. DCIT Asst.Years –2011-12 to 2017-18 - 32– SHRIPAL VOHRA LPT \\ Present Files \\ Excel Files \\ mail to anilbhai 3 Jamuna hisab 31032015 Hard Disk:\\Extracted Data\\Forensic Images \\ Data of SHRIPAL VOHRA PC\\ Deleted Files \\ Excel Files @25 paisa per month/Rs.100 i.e. 3.0% yearly Annexure-D3 On the other hand, the Ld. CIT(A) has relied upon the identical issue adjudicated by various Courts and observed that reasonable rate of commission in similar transactions was in the range of 0.2% to 0.5%. Considering the fact that the assessee had not offered any commission income in his return of income, the Ld. CIT(A) adopted the commission @ 1% on the transactions of Rs.91 Crores. 30. We have carefully considered the finding of the AO as well as the order of Ld. CIT(A). The observation of the AO that commission @ 2.4% to 3% was recorded in the seized document is not found correct. In the table reproduced above the rate of interest (commission) was mentioned as “@21.17 paisa per month/Rs.100/- i.e. 2.5404% yearly and @ 22 paise per month/Rs.100 i.e. 2.64% yearly”. The commission in the transaction of accommodation entry is not provided on monthly or yearly basis. It is one time transaction at the time of providing the cheque/cash for accommodation entry. IT(SS)A Nos. 473 to 479/Ahd/2019 & 425 to 427/Ahd/2019 ACIT vs. Shripal Vrajlal Vora & Shri Shripal Vrajlal Vora vs. DCIT Asst.Years –2011-12 to 2017-18 - 33– Therefore, the record of interest as appearing in the Excel sheets, on which reliance has been placed by the AO, cannot be considered as commission income; since in the accommodation entry transactions no commission is earned on monthly or annual basis but it is only one time transaction. Therefore, the rate of 2.4% to 3% as appearing in the Excel sheet was not in respect of commission but was in respect of interest for certain other transactions. The AO had wrongly taken the interest rate as commission income of the assessee, which can’t be upheld. Therefore, the ground taken by the revenue regarding rate of commission is dismissed. 31. On the other hand, the Ld. CIT(A) has considered the rate of commission in accommodation entry transactions, as upheld in certain other cases. He has relied upon the decision in the case of Rohit Pravinchand Pannu vs. ACIT in ITA No. 608 & 612/Ahd/2010 dated 31.05.2011, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal had estimated commission @ 0.125 % in respect of cheque/draft discounting. The Ld. CIT(A) after referring to certain other decisions had concluded that the reasonable rate of commission upheld by the various Courts in similar transaction was in the range of 0.2% to 0.5%. He has, however, not given any reasonable basis for estimating the commission in the case of assessee @ 1%. Merely because the IT(SS)A Nos. 473 to 479/Ahd/2019 & 425 to 427/Ahd/2019 ACIT vs. Shripal Vrajlal Vora & Shri Shripal Vrajlal Vora vs. DCIT Asst.Years –2011-12 to 2017-18 - 34– assessee had not offered any commission income in the return of income, the commission income cannot be estimated @1% when, according to him, the various Courts had upheld the commission in identical transactions @ 0.2 to 0.5% only. The contention of the assessee that commission rate of 0.1% only should be applied on the basis of admission as made by the assessee in the course of survey/search also can’t be accepted in the absence of any documentary evidence found during search in support of receipt of commission at such rate. A mere declaration of 0.1% commission by the assessee on accommodation entry of Rs.29.67 crores provided through 13 Surat based entities, can’t be accepted as a gospel truth. 32. While estimating the commission in respect of accommodation entry transactions, one has to consider the place where the entry is being provided. The rate of commission may vary from place to place. As like in any other transaction, the rate of commission is influenced by demand and supply factor viz. the number of persons who are willing to take accommodation entries and the number of operators who are engaged in providing such transactions at any place. The volume of transaction also has a bearing on the rate of commission. Therefore, the rate of commission as prevalent in a big metro city cannot be compared with the rate prevalent in IT(SS)A Nos. 473 to 479/Ahd/2019 & 425 to 427/Ahd/2019 ACIT vs. Shripal Vrajlal Vora & Shri Shripal Vrajlal Vora vs. DCIT Asst.Years –2011-12 to 2017-18 - 35– middle or a small class city. The assessee was based in a small place i.e., Bhavnagar and he was providing accommodation entries through Surat based entities. Therefore, it will be relevant to consider as to what was the rate of commission upheld in respect of other Surat based entities. In the case of Ashokkumar Durlabhji Thakkar ITA No. 542 & 693/Srt/2023 dated 04/01/2024, Surat Bench of the Tribunal had upheld the commission on accommodation entry transactions at the rate of Rs.75 per lakh i.e. @ 0.75%. In another case of Sri Deepak Vithalsas Suchak in ITA No. 361/Srt/2018 dated 30th July 2021, the commission on accommodation entry was upheld by the ITAT Surat @ Rs. 75 per lacs. In view of these precedents in respect of Surat based entities, it will be reasonable to estimate the commission earned by the assessee in respect of accommodation entry transactions provided through Surat based entities at the rate of 0.75%. Accordingly, the AO is directed to recompute the commission derived by the assessee by applying the rate of 0.75% on the accommodation entry of Rs. 91 crores as upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). The ground taken by the Revenue in respect of rate of commission on accommodation entry transactions is dismissed whereas the ground of the assessee in this respect is partly allowed. IT(SS)A Nos. 473 to 479/Ahd/2019 & 425 to 427/Ahd/2019 ACIT vs. Shripal Vrajlal Vora & Shri Shripal Vrajlal Vora vs. DCIT Asst.Years –2011-12 to 2017-18 - 36– 33. The remaining ground of the assessee in respect of telescoping of source-based addition against the disclosure of Res.29,05,280/- made by the assessee under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojna, 2016 (PMGKY) does not pertain to this year, as the disclosure under PMGKY was made in the next year. Therefore, this ground of the assessee is dismissed. 34. In the final result the appeal of the Revenue in IT(SS)A No.477/Ahd/2019 is dismissed whereas the appeal of the assessee in IT(SS)A No.425/Ahd/2019 is partly allowed. IT(SS)A No.478/Ahd/2019 & IT(SS)A No.426/Ahd/2019 (A.Y. 2016- 17) 35. The facts involved in IT(SS)A No.478 pertaining to A.Ys. 2016- 17 are identical to IT(SS)A No.477/Ahd/2019 and the grounds taken by the Revenue in this year are same, except the quantum of addition. Similarly, the facts and the grounds taken by the assessee in IT(SS)A No.426 for the A.Y. 2016-17 are also identical with IT(SS)A No.425. Therefore, the finding and the decision of IT(SS)A No.477/Ahd/2019 and in IT(SS)A No.425/Ahd/2019 on merits as well, is applicable mutatis mutandis to the appeals pertaining to A.Y. 2016-17. Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue in IT(SS)A No.478/Ahd/2019 is dismissed IT(SS)A Nos. 473 to 479/Ahd/2019 & 425 to 427/Ahd/2019 ACIT vs. Shripal Vrajlal Vora & Shri Shripal Vrajlal Vora vs. DCIT Asst.Years –2011-12 to 2017-18 - 37– whereas the appeal of the assessee in IT(SS)A No.426/Ahd/2019 is partly allowed. I.T(SS).A. No. 427/Ahd/2019(A.Y. 2017-18) 36. This appeal is filed by the assessee and is pertaining to A.Y. 2017-18. The assessee has challenged the addition of unaccounted cash deposits in the bank accounts as confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). 37. To recapitulate the facts pertaining to the grounds taken in this appeal, in the course of survey/search at the office premises of the assessee 457 blank signed cheques were found and seized. These cheques pertained to 348 accounts of different banks and all the signed cheques were either undated or dated on or after 08.11.2016 i.e., after the date of demonetization. In the course of statement recorded during survey, the assessee had explained that all the blank signed cheques pertained to his business clients. The assessee had explained that after demonetization he had deposited his unaccounted money in the form of old high denomination (OHD) notes of Rs.500/- & Rs.1000/- in various accounts of his clients in order to escape enquiry from the Income Tax Department. The amounts so deposited in various accounts was subsequently withdrawn by way of blank signed cheques of his IT(SS)A Nos. 473 to 479/Ahd/2019 & 425 to 427/Ahd/2019 ACIT vs. Shripal Vrajlal Vora & Shri Shripal Vrajlal Vora vs. DCIT Asst.Years –2011-12 to 2017-18 - 38– clients, which were found in the course of survey/search at his office. The assessee had, thus, admitted that he was mis- utilizing the accounts of his clients to launder his unaccounted money pursuant to demonetization. He had also admitted that the cash deposited in various bank accounts were his own unaccounted income of F.Y. 2016-17 and had agreed to pay tax thereon. In the course of assessment, the AO had analyzed 348 bank accounts pertaining to which signed cheques were found and it was found that cash deposits and withdrawals were made in only 143 bank accounts, the details of which is reproduced in the assessment order. The total unaccounted cash of the assessee deposited in these accounts was to the extent of Rs.85,63,500/-. In the course of assessment, it was pointed out that there were 12 repeat entries in the accounts to the extent of Rs.4,65,000/-. Accordingly, the AO had allowed relief in respect of duplicate entries and the balance amount of Rs.80,98,500/- was treated as undisclosed income of the assessee and added to income. The Ld. CIT(A) had allowed further relief of Rs.1,96,000/- in respect of cash deposited in assessee’s own account and the balance addition of Rs.79,62,500/- was confirmed by him. 38. Shri Tushar Hemani, Ld. Senior Counsel submitted that the first grievance of the assessee is in respect of addition of IT(SS)A Nos. 473 to 479/Ahd/2019 & 425 to 427/Ahd/2019 ACIT vs. Shripal Vrajlal Vora & Shri Shripal Vrajlal Vora vs. DCIT Asst.Years –2011-12 to 2017-18 - 39– cash deposits in various bank accounts. He submitted that the assessee was a practicing Chartered Accountant and used to write books of accounts of his clients and the cheque books seized by the department pertained to genuine clients of the assessee. Since, the assessee was assisting his clients in banking transactions as well, the blank cheques were kept with the assessee considering the difficulties in withdrawing money from the bank accounts during the demonetization period. The Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that the AO had examined some of the account holders whose cheques were found and that all those persons had unequivocally confirmed that the amounts deposited and withdrawn from the bank accounts belonged to them and not to the assessee. He further submitted that there were 21 accounts whose cheques were not found from the premise of the assessee and the total amount deposited in such 21 accounts aggregated to Rs.27,10,000/-. Therefore, the Revenue was not correct in making addition in respect of this amount as no blank/unsigned cheques of such account holders were found from the premises of the assessee. Further that, the addition of Rs.9,09,000/- against the name of “Arshil Enterprise” was also not correct. He explained that the assessee had advanced Rs.2.5 Lakhs to the said assessee in past, who had defaulted in repayment of that amount. The assessee had also filed a legal suit u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act IT(SS)A Nos. 473 to 479/Ahd/2019 & 425 to 427/Ahd/2019 ACIT vs. Shripal Vrajlal Vora & Shri Shripal Vrajlal Vora vs. DCIT Asst.Years –2011-12 to 2017-18 - 40– against the said party for the recovery of loan. The Ld. Sr. Counsel stressed that when the old debts from this person was not recovered, the assessee couldn’t have further deposited his own money in the account of that person. Therefore, the addition in respect of cash deposit of Rs.9,09,000/- in the bank account of the said person was also not justified. 39. Per contra, Shri A. P. Singh, Ld. CIT.DR. supported the orders of the AO and the Ld. CIT(A). He submitted that the AO had made the addition after considering the cash deposits in the accounts pertaining to which blank signed cheques were found in the course of search. Therefore, the contention of the assessee that no signed cheques in respect of cash deposit of Rs.27,10,000/- was found, was not correct. He further submitted that the affidavits filed by the account holders was only a self-serving document, which was rightly rejected by the Ld. CIT(A). 40. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. There is no dispute to the fact that in the course of survey/search 457 blank signed cheques were found from the premises of the assessee. In the course of statement recorded during survey and search, the assessee had admitted that he had utilized the bank account of his clients to deposit his own unaccounted money in the form of OHD notes of Rs.500/- & IT(SS)A Nos. 473 to 479/Ahd/2019 & 425 to 427/Ahd/2019 ACIT vs. Shripal Vrajlal Vora & Shri Shripal Vrajlal Vora vs. DCIT Asst.Years –2011-12 to 2017-18 - 41– Rs.1000/- and that the cash was to be withdrawn from these bank accounts after deposit of demonetized currency. It was in this context that the blank signed cheques were kept with him. The AO has reproduced the statement given by the assessee in the course of survey and thereafter, in the search operation in the assessment order and from the statements of the assessee this modus operandi is found to be substantiated. On the basis of these 457 blank signed cheques found in the course of search, the AO had identified 143 bank accounts in which actual transaction of cash deposits/withdrawals were made. From the detail as reproduced in the assessment order, it is found that the assessee had made total cash deposit of Rs.85,63,500/- in these accounts, out of which total withdrawal of Rs.71,40,000/- was also made. The assessee had subsequently retracted his statement and also filed an affidavit in this regard. The Ld. CIT(A) has dealt with this aspect in his order in detail and we fully agree with his rejection of retraction made by the assessee. The AO had also examined the financial credentials of actual account holders and it was found that they were having very meagre income and lacked creditworthiness of the cash deposits as appearing in the accounts. While retracting his statement, the assessee had not explained as to why 457 blank signed cheques were kept with him. Even if the assessee was doing the accounting services of his clients, no-one will keep IT(SS)A Nos. 473 to 479/Ahd/2019 & 425 to 427/Ahd/2019 ACIT vs. Shripal Vrajlal Vora & Shri Shripal Vrajlal Vora vs. DCIT Asst.Years –2011-12 to 2017-18 - 42– the blank signed cheques with his Accountant. Such an explanation is against the normal human probability, which can’t be accepted. Considering the evidences found in the course of search, the assessee’s own admission in the course of statements recorded during survey & search and the normal human probability of not parting with blank signed cheques; the Revenue had rightly held that the cash deposited in the bank accounts, pertaining to which blank signed cheques were found, represented the unaccounted income of the assessee. 41. As regarding the contention of the assessee that no cheques were found in respect of deposit of Rs.27,10,000/-; the AO had given a categorical finding in the assessment order that 143 bank accounts in which cash deposits / withdrawals were made, were identified on the basis of blank cheques found in the course of survey/search. The assessee had merely contended that in respect of cash deposits of Rs.27,10,000/- in 21 accounts no blank cheques were found, but no corroborative evidences in this regard has been brought on record. Neither the details of those accounts nor the specific deposits therein have been pointed out. As already mentioned earlier, out of total cash deposit of Rs.85,63,500/- in the accounts, a total sum of Rs.71,40,000/- was already withdrawn. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) had rightly rejected this contention of the assessee. IT(SS)A Nos. 473 to 479/Ahd/2019 & 425 to 427/Ahd/2019 ACIT vs. Shripal Vrajlal Vora & Shri Shripal Vrajlal Vora vs. DCIT Asst.Years –2011-12 to 2017-18 - 43– Similarly, regarding deposit of Rs.9,09,000/- in the account of Arshil Enterprise, the fact that this deposit was made in the bank account has not been denied. The assessee had merely contended that no deposits could have been made in this account since old debts were net recovered. However, no corroborative evidence in this regard has been brought on record. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the AO and the Ld. CIT(A) in this regard. 42. The source of the cash deposits in the form of unaccounted income from commission earned on providing accommodation entries, was already admitted by the assessee. In fact, unexplained cash of Rs.29,05,280/- found and seized in the course of search was also admitted by the assessee as his unaccounted income. The assessee had also disclosed the unexplained cash of Rs.29,05,280/- under PMGKY. We, therefore, don’t find any reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in respect of addition of cash deposits in bank accounts pertaining to which blank signed cheques were found from the possession of the assessee. The addition of Rs.79,02,500/- upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) in respect of unexplained cash deposits in bank accounts, is confirmed. IT(SS)A Nos. 473 to 479/Ahd/2019 & 425 to 427/Ahd/2019 ACIT vs. Shripal Vrajlal Vora & Shri Shripal Vrajlal Vora vs. DCIT Asst.Years –2011-12 to 2017-18 - 44– 43. The next ground pertains to telescoping of source-based addition made in the order against disclosure of Rs.29,05,280/- made by the assessee under PMGKY. The Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that the assessee had made disclosure of Rs.29,09,280/- in PMGKY during A.Y. 2017-18 by filing requisite declaration and that this fact was acknowledged by the AO in the assessment order. He explained that the source i.e., commission income as well as the application i.e., cash deposits/cash found, both cannot be added simultaneously. He, therefore, requested that to the extent of disclosure of Rs.29,09,280/- in PMGKY, set off should be granted to the assessee against the addition in respect of cash deposits. 44. Per contra, the Ld. CIT.DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A). He submitted that the cash found and the cash deposits in the bank accounts, both were only application of unaccounted commission income. Therefore, the cash found in the course of search cannot be allowed set off with the cash deposits. 45. We have considered the rival submissions. The cash of Rs.29,09,280/- found during the search was disclosed in PMGKY in A.Y. 2017-18 and tax thereon was also paid. The source of cash found as well as the cash deposited in the bank IT(SS)A Nos. 473 to 479/Ahd/2019 & 425 to 427/Ahd/2019 ACIT vs. Shripal Vrajlal Vora & Shri Shripal Vrajlal Vora vs. DCIT Asst.Years –2011-12 to 2017-18 - 45– accounts was the commission income earned by the assessee. As rightly pointed out by the Revenue, the set off of the cash found which was disclosed in PMGKY, cannot be allowed against the cash deposits in the bank accounts. The cash deposits in the bank account were only application of unaccounted income of the assessee. Therefore, the request of the assessee to allow set off of the cash deposits in the bank accounts with the disclosure made in PMGKY is rejected. At the same time, the set off of the application of income has to be allowed against the source-based addition on account of commission income. Therefore, the AO is directed to allow set off of disclosure made by the assessee in PMGKY with the addition in respect of commission income. The ground of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 46. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. I.T(SS).A. No. 477/Ahd/2019 (A.Y. 2017-18) 47. The grievance of the Revenue is this appeal pertaining to A.Y. 2017-18 is against the deletion of undisclosed commission income by the Ld. CIT(A) in respect of accommodation entries. 48. The first four grounds taken by the Revenue in this appeal are identical with the first four grounds in IT(SS)A No. IT(SS)A Nos. 473 to 479/Ahd/2019 & 425 to 427/Ahd/2019 ACIT vs. Shripal Vrajlal Vora & Shri Shripal Vrajlal Vora vs. DCIT Asst.Years –2011-12 to 2017-18 - 46– 473/Ahd/2019 for the A.Y. 2011-12 that we have adjudicated earlier. However, there is a material difference in this year as the A.Y. 2017-18 was an abated assessment, whereas the discussion made in the A.Y. 2011-12 was in respect of unabated/completed assessment. The decision of Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Abhishar Buildwell (supra) analyzed in IT(SS)A No.473/Ahd/2019 was vis-à-vis the completed/unabated assessment, wherein it was held that no addition can be made in respect of completed assessments in the absence of any incriminating material. However, as the A.Y. 2017-18 is a case of abated assessments, the findings and observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhishar Buildwell (supra) will not be applicable to this year. As per the scheme of Section 153A of the Act, the AO is entitled to assess or re-assess the total income for the purpose of which all the materials as available with him can be considered. Therefore, the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) that the addition for this year was required to be confined only to the incriminating material found during the search was palpably wrong. In the case of abated assessment, addition can be made even without any incriminating material found in the course of search. Further, addition can also be made in respect of issues not related to search and seizure. In view of these facts and also following the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case IT(SS)A Nos. 473 to 479/Ahd/2019 & 425 to 427/Ahd/2019 ACIT vs. Shripal Vrajlal Vora & Shri Shripal Vrajlal Vora vs. DCIT Asst.Years –2011-12 to 2017-18 - 47– of Abhisar Buildwell (supra), we are of the considered opinion that the Ld. CIT(A) was not correct in holding that no addition could have been made in this year in the absence of any incriminating material. The grounds taken by the Revenue are, therefore, allowed. 49. The next three grounds pertain to merit of addition of Rs.7,05,10,337/- made by the AO on account of commission income @ 2.75% on the accommodation entries. This addition was made on the basis of extrapolation of entries in the bank account of 36 concerns whose names were appearing in the two excel sheets seized in the course of search. We have already taken a view earlier that the bank account transactions of 36 companies cannot be considered as accommodation entries. At the same time, the commission income in respect of accommodation entries as appearing in the two excel sheets seized in the course of search was upheld in the A.Ys. 2015-16 & 2016-17 to the extent of Rs.91 Crore & Rs.91.38 Crores respectively. When the evidences for accommodation entries were found in the course of search in respect of A.Ys. 2015-16 & 2016-17, the normal presumption would be that the AO was carrying on the same business in the succeeding year as well. In the course of search, certain evidences for earning of commission income in the A.Y.2017-18 were also found. The IT(SS)A Nos. 473 to 479/Ahd/2019 & 425 to 427/Ahd/2019 ACIT vs. Shripal Vrajlal Vora & Shri Shripal Vrajlal Vora vs. DCIT Asst.Years –2011-12 to 2017-18 - 48– cash of Rs.29,05,280/- found in the course of search as well as source of cash deposits made in various other bank accounts in respect of which blank signed cheques were found, were all explained to be derived out of commission income earned by the assessee. Considering the evidences found in the course of search pertaining to the earlier years as well as the evidences for cash deposits in the current year, the AO was entitled to extrapolate the earning of commission income in the current year as well, even if no specific evidence for earning of such commission income was found. The admission of the assessee that the source of cash found during search as well as the cash deposits in the bank accounts was the commission income earned out of accommodation entries, was sufficient evidence to make the addition in respect of commission income in the current year. Considering the fact that evidence for accommodation entry transactions of 91 crores approx. were found in the A.Ys. 2015-16 & 2016-17, it will be reasonable to estimate that the assessee had earned commission income on total transaction of Rs.100 Crores in the current A.Y. 2017-18. Accordingly, the AO is directed to work out the commission income @ 0.75%, as upheld in A.Ys. 2015-16 & 2016-17, on the estimated accommodation entry transaction of Rs.100 Crores in the current year. At the same time, the assessee should be allowed set off of this commission income with the IT(SS)A Nos. 473 to 479/Ahd/2019 & 425 to 427/Ahd/2019 ACIT vs. Shripal Vrajlal Vora & Shri Shripal Vrajlal Vora vs. DCIT Asst.Years –2011-12 to 2017-18 - 49– cash deposits in the bank account and the disclosure under PMGKY made in the current year. Accordingly, the ground taken by the Revenue is allowed in part. 50. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed. 51. The final outcome of these appeals is summarized in the table below: Sl. No. ITA No. Filed by Result 1 IT(SS)A No.473/Ahd/2019 Revenue Dismissed 2 IT(SS)A No.474/Ahd/2019 Revenue Dismissed 3 IT(SS)A No.475/Ahd/2019 Revenue Dismissed 4 IT(SS)A No.476/Ahd/2019 Revenue Dismissed 5 IT(SS)A No.477/Ahd/2019 Revenue Dismissed 6 IT(SS)A No.478/Ahd/2019 Revenue Dismissed 7 IT(SS)A No.479/Ahd/2019 Revenue Partly Allowed 8 IT(SS)A No.425/Ahd/2019 Assessee Partly Allowed 9 IT(SS)A No.426/Ahd/2019 Assessee Partly Allowed 10 IT(SS)A No.427/Ahd/2019 Assessee Partly Allowed This Order pronounced in Open Court on 06/12/2024 Sd/- Sd/- (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) (NARENDRA P. SINHA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated /12/2024 TANMAY, Sr. PS TRUE COPY आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant 2. Ĥ×यथȸ / The Respondent. 3. संबंͬधत आयकर आयुÈत / Concerned CIT IT(SS)A Nos. 473 to 479/Ahd/2019 & 425 to 427/Ahd/2019 ACIT vs. Shripal Vrajlal Vora & Shri Shripal Vrajlal Vora vs. DCIT Asst.Years –2011-12 to 2017-18 - 50– 4. आयकर आयुÈत(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड[ फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad "