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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA No.

4634/MUM/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt.

Ltd., 2nd floor, Johari Mansion, 259, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai-400 002.

Vs.

Dy.

CIT Central Circle-2(4), Mumbai.

PAN No.

AAICS 1651 C Appellant Respondent ITA No.

7163/MUM/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 & ITA No.

7162/MUM/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt.

Ltd., 2nd floor, Johri Mansion, 259, Kalbadevi Road, Kalbadevi, Mumbai-400 002.

DCIT CC-2(1), 9th floor, New Pratiksha Bhavan, M.K.

Road, Mumbai-400020.

AAICS 1651 C Appellant Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Mrs.

Neelam Shukla, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 15/06/2022 Date of pronouncement : 27/07/2022 PER OM PRAKASH K These three app separate orders date passed by the Ld Mumbai [in short ‘th 2014-15 and 2015-16 from the same set o therefore, these app way of this consolida of facts.

Despite n adjournment applica earlier occasions i.e.

2 attended and matte Further, on 24.05.2 assessee was present Sa ORDER KANT, AM peals by the assessee are directe ed 26/08/2019, 20/06/2018 an .

Commissioner of Income-t he Ld.

CIT(A)’] for assessment 6 respectively.

As common grou of the facts have been raised in eals were heard together and ated order for convenience and notifying neither anyone appe ation was filed on behalf of th 24.01.2022, 21.02.2022 & 19.05 er was adjourned on written 2022, the Authorized Represe t and on whose request, the ma arvesh Mercantile Pvt.

Ltd.

ITA Nos.

7163 & 7162/M/2019 2 ed against three nd 26/08/2019 tax(Appeals)-48, years 2013-14, unds permeating n these appeals, disposed off by avoid repetition eared nor any he assessee.

On 5.2022 also none n request filed. entative of the atter was posted on 13.06.2022.

On 13 matter was adjourne made.

In the circum assessee is not intere heard ex-parte qua th DR and taking into co available on record. on record.

ITA No.

7163/MUM/20 Assessment Year: 2013 2.

We first take th grounds raised in a under: 1.

The Ld. estimat of acco 2.

The Ld.

AO of ₹ 3.

The Ld carried Sa 3.06.2022 also none attended, an ed to 15.06.2022.

But still no c mstances, we were of the op ested in prosecuting the appeal. he assessee, after hearing argum onsideration written submission 019 3-14 he appeal of the assessee for A assessment year 2013-14 are .

CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition ma ting business income at ₹68,94,265/- reject unt. .

CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition ma ₹235,00,000/- as cash credit u/s 68 of the Ac d.

CIT(A) erred in not allowing set off of d forward. arvesh Mercantile Pvt.

7163 & 7162/M/2019 3 nd therefore, the compliance was pinion that the Thus same was ments of the Ld. n of the assessee AY 2013-14.

The reproduced as ade by Ld.

AO ting the books ade by the Ld. ct. f losses to be 3.

Briefly stated fa of income for the declaring Nil income for carry forward.

3.1 In the case of th of the Income Tax Ac the Investigation W on19.03.2015 alongw ‘Luxora’ group.

Duri director of the com recorded and he wa sales transactions wit entities.

He admitte Group’ were without or services.

He furthe also provided to M Sa acts of the case are that the asses year under consideration o e, claiming loss of current year he assessee a survey action und ct, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) was Wing of the Income-tax Depar with search action at the p ng the course of the survey, st mpany ‘Sh Kirtikumar Taracha s asked to furnish details of a th ‘Mirah Dekor P.

Ltd.’ and othe d that all the transactions w taking or giving any physical d er stated that such accommodati M/s Mirah Group, through o arvesh Mercantile Pvt.

7163 & 7162/M/2019 4 ssee filed return on 27/09/2013 of ₹10,57,574/- der section 133A s carried out by rtment Mumbai remises of the tatement of the and Doshi’ was ll purchase and er ‘Mirah Group’ with ‘M/s Mirah elivery of goods ion entries were other were other concerns controlled and opera etc.

During survey a Doshi was also ask entries recorded in th 3.2 Based on the in Investigation Wing, assessment after rec assessment.

In the as Act on 20/12/2017 Firstly, the addition ₹68,94,265/- from p estimated at the rat accounts of ₹13,78,8 respect of loans reco namely, M/s Karishm M/s Parshwnath Gem Sa ted by him such as M/s Symcom action, the director Sh.

Kiritku ked regarding unsecured loan he books of accounts of the asses nformation received of survey Mumbai, the Assessing Officer ording reasons to believe that i ssessment completed under sec 7, the Assessing Officer made was made for earning commis providing accommodation entr te of the 5% on sales record 85,318/-.

Secondly, the additio orded in books of accounts fro ma diamonds private limited ms P.

Ltd. (₹35,00,000/-) Mari arvesh Mercantile Pvt.

7163 & 7162/M/2019 5 m, M/s Ecospace umar Tarachand ns from certain ssee company. action from the r reopened the income escaped ction 147 of the two additions. ssion income of ries, which was ded in books of on was made in om four parties (₹25,00,000/-); ine Gems P Ltd (₹1,50,00,000/-) M/ holding the same as of the Act.

Before the challenging reopenin dismissed by the Ld.

Ld.

CIT(A) dismissed assessee is in appea reproduced above.

4.

Ground No.

1 o accounts and addition 5.

The Assessing O bills vouchers etc. for Sh Kirtikumar Tarac that purchase and s were without physica entry transactions.

I Sa /s Keshria Diamonds P.

Ltd. unexplained cash credit in term e Ld.

CIT(A), the assessee did n ng of the assessment and there .

CIT(A).

But on merit of the ad d the grounds of the assessee. al before the Tribunal raising of the appeal relates to rejecti n of ₹68,94,265/- to the gross pr Officer observed that assessee fa r verification.

He further noted t chand Doshi stated during surv sale transaction with M/s Mira al delivery and in the nature of In view of those facts, the As arvesh Mercantile Pvt.

ITA Nos. .

7163 & 7162/M/2019 6 (₹25,00,000/-), ms of section 68 ot press ground efore same was ddition also, the .

Aggrieved, the the ground as ion of books of rofit. ailed to produce that the Director vey proceedings ah décor Group accommodation ssessing Officer rejected the books of the 5% on sales of ₹68,94,265/-.

The Ld embedded in b brokerage/commissi declared by the asses 6.

Before us in wr assessee has subm transaction with ‘Mir Limited and therefor books of accounts me were not produced submitted that the as to produce books o transaction with M/ restored to the file of Sa f accounts and estimated additio f ₹13,78,85,318/- which was d.

CIT(A) upheld the addition ho bogus transactions in th on was over and above the ssee. ritten submission filed, the Ld mitted that during the year rah Group’ including M/s Mira e lower authorities are not justi erely on the reason that said bo before the Assessing Officer. ssessee may be provided one m of accounts for verifying that s Mirah Group and issue in di f the Ld.

Assessing Officer. arvesh Mercantile Pvt.

7163 & 7162/M/2019 7 on at the rate of worked out to lding that profit he form of normal profit . counsel of the there was no ah décor Private ified in rejecting ooks of accounts Accordingly, he ore opportunity t there was no ispute might be 6.1 Without prejudi account, he further s assessment order o assessment order, t made at the rate of tw assessment year add arbitrary and with submitted that asse ₹1,47,12,015/-, whic further addition est double taxation and h 7.

DR on t books of accounts, support the book r sustaining the additio Sa ice to the objection to the rejec ubmitted that in assessment ye of which was framed earlier the addition for brokerage/co wo percent of the sales, wherea ition has been made at the rate out reference to past record essee has already shown a ch is in excess of 5% and th imating gross profit rate of 5 hence also the addition need to b the other hand submitted tha mitted that in bills and vouchers and other esults, the lower authorities on. arvesh Mercantile Pvt.

7163 & 7162/M/2019 8 tion of books of ear 2014-15, the to the present ommission was as in the present of 5%, which is ds.

He further gross profit of herefore making 5%, amounts to be deleted. n the absence of r documents to are justified in 8.

We have heard dispute and perused written submission o of the assessee have accounts, bills vouch and on the allegation out with M/s Mirah D submitted that durin transaction with M importance, has not absence of books of by the assessee.

Now has expressed willi vouchers etc. for veri facts and circumstan justice, we feel it app Sa d submission of the Ld.

DR o d the relevant material on re on behalf of the assessee.

The bo e been rejected mainly in absen hers etc. produced before the A n of accommodation entry trans Décor group entities.

Before us, t ng the year under consideratio /s Mirah Group entities.

Thi t been verified by the Asses accounts and bills and voucher w before us, in written submissio ngness to produce books of ification by the Assessing Office ces above and in the interest of propriate to restore the issue-in arvesh Mercantile Pvt.

7163 & 7162/M/2019 9 on the issue-in- ecord including ooks of accounts nce of books of Assessing Officer sactions carried the assessee has on there was no is fact of vital ssing Officer in rs etc. produced ons, the assessee accounts, bills r.

In view of the f the substantial n-dispute to the file of the Assessing O of the appeal is accor 9.

The ground N ₹2,35,00,000/- in re credit under section 6 10.

The Assessing O from M/s Karishma d ₹35,00,000/- from M “Paraswnath”), ₹1,5 Limited (in short M Diamonds Private Lim during survey procee Kirtikumar Doshi wa loan transactions but any details of the dir of those persons.

Sh Sa Officer for deciding afresh.

The dingly allowed for statistical pur No. al pur No.

2 of the appeal relates spect of loans, which have bee 68 of the Act.

Officer observed loans received diamonds private limited (in sho M/s Parasnath Gems private li 0,00,000/- from M/s Marine Marine) and ₹25,00,000/- from mited (in short “Keshriya”).

He edings, the director of the assess s asked to justify the nature and t the assessee failed to substanti ectors of those companies or an h Kirtikumar stated that he did arvesh Mercantile Pvt.

7163 & 7162/M/2019 10 ground No. one rposes. to addition of en held as cash of ₹25,00,000/- ort “Karishma”), mited (in short Gems Private m M/s Keshria also noted that see company, Sh d source of those iate and provide ny other contact d not remember either the name of th loans were received activity of those part the above observatio section 133(6) to the affirming the giving o Officer was not satisf 10.1 The Ld.

Assess Karishma Diamonds Private Limited, ha Bhanwarlal Jain, whe 131 of the Act stated Parasnath were con recorded in their bo business activity was from M/s Marine, Sa he directors or contact person and he was also not aware abo ties from whom loans were rece ons, the Assessing Officer issue e parties.

In response, the part of loans to the assessee, howeve fied with the creditworthiness of ing Officer in respect of the l Private Limited and M/s Par s referred to the statement erein he in his statement recorde that these two entities i.e.

M/s K trolled and operated by him a ooks of accounts are all bogus s carried by those two entities. the Assessing Officer has r arvesh Mercantile Pvt.

7163 & 7162/M/2019 11 from whom the out the business eived.

In view of ed notice under ties filed replies er, the Assessing f those parties. loans from M/s raswnath Gems of Sh Gautam ed under section Karishma & M/s and the entries entries and no Regarding loan eferred to the statement of the dir admitted that the en by him and used for p loan from ‘M/s Kesha of director Sh Vijay N entity was contro was controlle providing accommod 10.2 In view of abov view that directors a have admitted the fa companies and th accommodation entr that director of the a carried out by the as decided as per the c assessee was transac Sa rector ‘Sh Pramod Kumar Rank ntity ‘M/s Marine’ was controlle providing accommodation entri aria’, the Assessing Officer referr Narendra Kothari, wherein he als ed and operated by him and dation entry. ve statements, the Assessing Of and the persons who controlled ct that no real activity was con hey were in the business ries only.

The Assessing Officer assessee also admitted that no r ssessee company and all prices convenience of the other party ted. arvesh Mercantile Pvt.

7163 & 7162/M/2019 12 ka’, wherein he ed and operated ies.

In respect of red to statement so admitted that d was used for fficer was of the d the companies, ducted by those of providing r also observed real activity was s of goods were with whom the 10.3 The Assessing O Director of assessee those companies exc cheque and interest Officer relied on the case of Kachwala Ge wherein it is held th sufficient to establish referred to of the de CIT Vs Prashant (p) that even payment by would not make othe 10.4 In view of abov that assessee failed t creditworthiness of Sa Officer noted that during survey -company failed to provide an cept the statement that loans w at the rate of 11% was paid decision of the Hon’ble Suprem ems P.

Vs JCIT (2006) 20 hat payment by account payee h the genuineness of the purcha cision of the Hon’ble High Cour ) (1994) 121CTR 20 (Cal.) wh y account payee cheque is not s erwise nongenuine transactions ve observations, the Ld.

Assess to establish (i) identity of the lo loan providers and (iii) genu arvesh Mercantile Pvt.

7163 & 7162/M/2019 13 y action also the ny details about were received by .

The Assessing me Court in the 06 CTR 585(SC) e cheque is not ases. not ases.

He further rt in the case of herein it is held acrosanct and it as genuine. ing Officer held oan provider (ii) uineness of the transactions, and the credit in terms of sect 11.

Before the Ld. were made relying o opportunity was gi documents.

The as Paraswanath and Ka the Ld.

CIT(A) in term Ld.

CIT(A) rejected th of Paraswnath and information, bank st return in respect of t of the Act.

11.1 Ld.

CIT(A) how satisfactorily explain Sa erefore he held those loans as un tion 68 of the Act.

CIT(A) the assessee submitted n the third-party statement and iven to the assessee to prod ssessee filed affidavits of th arishma, however same were n ms of Rule 46A of Income Tax R he retraction statements given b Karishma.

The assessee also tatement and acknowledgemen the parties to support its onus u wever was of the view that ass the nature and source of the cre arvesh Mercantile Pvt.

7163 & 7162/M/2019 14 nexplained cash d that additions d no reasonable duce necessary he director of not admitted by Rules, 1962.

The by the directors filed copies of nt of Income-tax under section 68 sessee failed to edit in his books of accounts and the Assessing Officer.

12.

We have heard relevant material on assessee.

As per rule circumstances, additi be admitted: a. where the evidences b. where the from produ the Assess c. where the from prod ground of t Sa erefore sustained the addition d submission of the Ld.

DR an n record including written sub 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 19 ional evidence produced by the e Assessing Officer has refuse assessee was prevented by the ucing the evidences which were ing Officer assessee was prevented by the ducing the evidence which are the appeal arvesh Mercantile Pvt.

7163 & 7162/M/2019 15 n made by the nd perused the bmission of the 962, in following e assessee could d to admit the sufficient cause e called upon by sufficient cause relevant to the d. where Ass giving suff evidences 13. dences 13.

From the writte we have noticed that wherein the assessee because those evide Officer.

The letter o 07/08/2019 is availa part of the said letter “In connection an appeal as w mentioned in produced afre assessment p information i purchases and loans appearin collated earlie December, 20 Sa sessing Officer has passed the ficient opportunity to the asse relevant to the ground of the ap en submissions filed by the asse the assessee filed a letter befor e had requested for filing addit ences could not be filed before f the assessee filed before the able on page 18 of the paperboo r is reproduced as under: n with the above assessment year, the appel well as made submission before your Honou page no.

24 to 39 and page no.

56 to 12 esh which were not furnished during th proceedings.

The assessing officer call in the month of September,2017 pertai d sales as well as confirmation in relation ng in the balance sheet.

Since the details er, the appellant could gather them only in 017.

Due to complexities involved i arvesh Mercantile Pvt.

7163 & 7162/M/2019 16 e order without essee to adduce peal essee before us, re the Ld.

CIT(A) ional evidences, e the Assessing e Ld.

CIT(A) on ok.

The relevant llant has filed ur.

Documents 23 are being he course of led for the ining to the to unsecured could not be the month of n gathering information fr assessment pro information at for submission appellant was submissions w and clause (d) your Honour k have already Goodselves to report.

We u producing all Honour will pl and oblige.” 13.1 We find that in 244 & 245/Mum/20 Bench, in view of retr Jain, has restored the the Assessing Officer 14.

DR cou frame in which the a and before the ass Sa from the lenders who were already busy oceedings, the appellant could not lay his h t earlier instance.

However, when the paper n and the appellant approached the Assessin s informed that the assessment is fram will not be entertained.

In view of these fac ). ese fac ).

In the interest of natural justice, we earn kindly to admit the additional evidence an furnished two sets of submission which forward the same to the Assessing Officer ndertake to appear before the Assessing the necessary details if any called by him lease do the needful and admit the case for n the case of M/s Sunrise Assoc 22 for AY 2013-14 & 2014-15, raction of statement by Sh.

Gau e matter of addition u/s 68 of for re-examination. uld not controvert that there w assessee was asked to provide sessee could file the said in arvesh Mercantile Pvt.

7163 & 7162/M/2019 17 sy with their hands for the rs were ready ng Officer, the med and the cts clause (a) nestly request nd oblige.

We enables your r for remand g Officer for m.

Hope your r adjudication ciate in ITA No. the Co-ordinate tam Bhanwarlal the Act, back to was limited time the information nformation, the assessment order wa assessee fulfils the sufficient opportunity admission.

Since in r have already restor Assessing Officer a simultaneous procee of Ld.

CIT(A), we fee file of the Assessing the additional eviden be produced by the assessee is according 15.

3 of of the carry forward making additions.

Sin additions to the file o Sa as passed on 22/12/2017.

In o circumstances under Rule 46 y, therefore additional evidence respect of the ground No.

1 of red the issue-in-dispute to t and therefore, for avoiding dings, instead of restoring the m l it appropriate to restore the i Officer for deciding afresh afte nces and examination of the par e assessee.

The ground of the gly allowed for statistical purpos f the appeals is in respect of not d losses against the income de nce we have already restored b of the Assessing Officer and the arvesh Mercantile Pvt.

7163 & 7162/M/2019 18 our opinion, the 6A(1)(d) i.e.

1)(d) i.e. no s are eligible for f the appeal, we the file of the multiplicity of matter to the file issue also to the r verification of rties, which will e appeal of the ses. t allowing set off etermined after both the issue of erefore set off of the issue of the carr issue afresh by the A issue is only of acad the ground No.

3 of th ITA No.

4634/MUM/20 Assessment Year: 2014 16.

The grounds rai 15 are reproduced as 1.

C considerin statements Mr.

Cauta otherwise 2.

Co the additio Act.

3.

Co the additio the income profit.

Co the additio Sa ry forward losses will arise aft Assessing Officer, and therefore demic nature and therefore we he appeal as infructuous.

018 4-15 ised by the assessee for assessm s under: Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) g the submissions made in relation to s recorded in the case of Mr.

Pramod Kum m Jain which has a bearing on deciding in the hands of the appellant. ommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on of Rs.

1.00.00.000/- under section 68 of t ommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred ons of Rs.

36,63,718/- as brokerage income e already offered by the appellant at about 5 ommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erre ons of interest expenses of Rs.

16,78,356/- arvesh Mercantile Pvt.

7163 & 7162/M/2019 19 ter deciding the e at present this are dismissing, ment year 2014- erred in not retraction of mar Ranka and the income or d in upholding the Income Tax d in upholding e in addition to 5.12% as gross d in upholding 5.

Co the additio 17.

Now we take up year 2014-15 for adju 18.

The brief facts q Officer in view of fact Mirah Group during Officer rejected boo commission/brokera recorded in books o worked out to ₹36,63 the brokerage inco circumstantial eviden Court in the case of M & Co.

154 ITR 148.

Counsel of the declared gross profit Sa ommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred ons of interest expenses of Rs.

6,07,472/-. p Ground No.

3 of the assessee udication. udication. qua, the issue-in-dispute are tha t of issuing accommodation entr g the year under consideration ks of accounts of the assesse age @ 2% on the sales of ₹ of accounts.

The addition for 3,718/-.

CIT(A) upheld th me on the test of human p nces following decision of the H Meenaxi Mills Ltd.

63 ITR 609 Before us, in the written subm assessee submitted that ass t of ₹1,21,56,097/- from the b arvesh Mercantile Pvt.

7163 & 7162/M/2019 20 d in upholding for assessment at the Assessing ry bills to to M/s n, the Assessing e and assessed ₹18,31,85,888/- brokerage was he estimation of probability and Hon’ble Supreme and McDowell mission filed, the sessee has also business activity recorded in the book According to his sub gross profit @ 5% o account which the providing accommod is not justified commission/brokera declared by the asses 19.

On the other ha authorities.

20.

We have heard relevant material o authorities.

It is und profit @ 5.12% on account.

The Ld. transactions related Sa ks of accounts at the gross profi bmission, when the assessee ha on the business activity record Assessing Officer has treated dation entry and therefore, the A in making separate age @ 2% in addition to i ssee from said business activity. and, the Ld.

DR relied on the ord d submission of the Ld.

DR an n record including the order disputed that the assessee has the transactions recorded in Assessing Officer has treate to M/s M/s Mirah Group as arvesh Mercantile Pvt.

7163 & 7162/M/2019 21 it rate of 5.12%. as also declared ded in books of d as activity of Assessing Officer addition for income already der of the lower nd perused the r of the lower declared gross n the books of ed those very s transaction of providing accommod not excluded the i transactions of busin addition @ 2% on the Officer has declared separate addition for in the facts of the cas considered as gener which subsumes in th assessee. assessee.

The only di the income which a issuing accommodat assessee profit has b books of account.

Thu addition over and a assessee from busine Sa dation entry without any real b income offered by the asses ness.

The Assessing Officer has s e very same transaction on whic gross profit rate of 5.12%.

In r the brokerage or commission se.

The commission or brokerag ated from accommodation ent he gross profit @ 5.12% already ifference is of characterization ccording to the Assessing Offi tion entry bills whereas acc been earned from business activ us lower authorities are not jus above the income @ 5.12% ess transaction.

In view of the ab arvesh Mercantile Pvt.

7163 & 7162/M/2019 22 business but has ssee from said separately made ch the Assessing n our opinion, a is not required ge @ 2% can be try transactions, y declared by the of the source of cer is from the cording to the vity recorded in stified in making offered by the bove discussion, we set aside the or dispute that allow the 21.

1, assessee during the y of loans received du earlier years.

In Grou as loan from M/s Mar cash credit in terms interest, in respect o amounting to ₹16,78 interest of ₹6,07,472 M/s Parshwnath Ge Limited has been ad which have been disp 22.

We find that the parties namely M/s M Sa rder of the lower authorities o e ground raised by the assessee.

2, 4 and 5 relates to loans r year under consideration and int uring the year/interest in res und No.

2, the addition of ₹1.00 rine Gems P Ltd. has been added of section 68 of the Act.

In gr of loans received from M/s Mar 8,356/- has been disputed.

In 2/- credited in respect of loans ems P.

Ltd. and Karishma Dia ded by the Assessing Officer u/ puted by the assessee. e issue-in-dispute of treating loa M/s Marine Gems P Ltd, M/s Pa arvesh Mercantile Pvt.

7163 & 7162/M/2019 23 on the issue-in- received by the terest in respect pect of loan in crores received d as unexplained ound No. d ound No.

3, the rine Gems P Ltd n ground No.

5, s received from amonds Private /s 68 of the Act an received from arshwnath Gems P.

Ltd., Karishma D restored to the file o assessment year 20 finding in assessmen the appeal of the a Assessing Officer fo assessment year 201 allowed for statistical ITA No.

7162/MUM/20 Assessment Year: 2015 23.

Now we take up 2015-16.

The ground and making of estim under consideration. from brokerage for i total sales.

In writte has submitted that d Sa Diamonds Private Limited has of the Assessing Officer for dec 014-15.

Therefore, accordingly t year 2013-14, these grounds N assessee are also restored to r deciding afresh following o 13-14.

These grounds of appeal l purposes.

019 5-16 p the appeal of the assessee for a d No.

1 relates to rejection of bo mated of addition of ₹79,51,70 .

The Assessing Officer has est ssuing accommodation entry bi n submission, the Ld.

Counsel during the year gross profit rat arvesh Mercantile Pvt.

7163 & 7162/M/2019 24 s already been ciding afresh in , following our No.

1, 2, 4 & 5 of the file of the our direction in are accordingly assessment year ooks of accounts 7/- in the year timated income ills @ 5% of the of the assessee te declared is of 6.97%, which is m income estimated by issue has already be therefore, following addition for brokera on the basis of tran reported gross profit income is subsumed therefore no separ required.

The ground 24.

The ground N ₹17,18,44,093/- in te as unexplained cash consideration is ide assessment year 201 Sa much higher than the brokera y the Assessing Officer i.e.

5% en decided by us in assessmen our finding in assessment yea age/commission on accommoda nsactions for which the assess t @ 6.97%, we hold that brokera d in gross profit declared by th rate addition for commission d No.

1 raised by the assessee is a No.

2 of the appeal relates erms of section 68 of the Act tr credit. tr credit.

The issue in dispute in entical to the issue of the 13-14 and therefore, following 13-14, the ground No.

2 of th arvesh Mercantile Pvt.

7163 & 7162/M/2019 25 age/commission %.

The identical nt year 2014-15, ar 2014-15, the ation entry bills see has already age/commission he assessee and n/brokerage is allowed. to addition of eating the loans the year under cash credit in g our finding in e appeal of the assessee is also allow the Assessing Officer assessment year 201 25.

In the result, t allowed partly for sta Order pronounce Sd/- (ABY T VARKE JUDICIAL MEM Mumbai; Dated: 27/07/2022 Rahul Sharma, Sr.

P.S.

Copy of the Order forward 1.

The Appellant 2.

The Respondent.

The CIT(A)- 4.

CIT 5.

DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6.

Guard file. //True Copy// Sa wed for statistical purposes with r for deciding afresh following 3-14. the three appeals filed by th atistical purposes. ed in the Court on 27/07/2022.

Sd/ EY) (OM PRAKASH BER ACCOUNTANT ded to : BY ORDER, (Sr.

Private Se ITAT, Mum arvesh Mercantile Pvt.

7163 & 7162/M/2019 26 the direction to our direction in he assessee are /- H KANT) MEMBER ecretary) mbai