AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
These Revenue’s and assessee’s seven cross appeals each i.e. ITA Nos. 3166 to 3579/Del/2026; arise against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi order(s), all dated 30.01.2026, having DIN & Order Nos. ITBA/APL/M/250/2025-26/1085385515(1) - (A.Y. 2014-15); 1085385559(1) - (A.Y. 2015-16); 1085385629(1) – (A.Y. 2016-17); 1085385702(1) – (A.Y. 2017-18); 1085385745(1) – (A.Y. 2018-19); 1085385802(1) – (A.Y. 2019-20); 1085385877(1) – (A.Y. 2020-21) involving proceedings under sections 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’); respectively.
Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused.
It transpires during the course of hearing that all the instant fourteen cross appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee emanate from the learned departmental authorities’ search action dated 27.12.2019 carried out in M/s DAG group of companies etc. The same admittedly culminated in the impugned seven assessments framed in the assessees’ case on 29.09.2021 by the learned ACIT, Central Circle – 18, Delhi. There does not appear much a dispute between the parties that he went on to treat the assessees’ loan transactions in the relevant financial year as in the nature of accommodation entries and assessed the same @3.6% per annum involving beneficiaries other than “DAG” group and 0.9% per annum in the said searched group; respectively.
The assessee filed its seven appeals wherein the learned CIT(A) has restricted the Assessing Officer’s action; in the following terms:
“9.36On the issue of quantum of addition, even if it were to be held that the appellant earned some commission income from providing accommodation entries, the question arises as to what should be the appropriate commission rate and what should be the method of calculation. The Assessing Officer has applied a commission rate of 3.6% per annum for loans provided to beneficiaries other than DAG Group and 0.9% per annum for loans provided to DAG Group. The Assessing Officer has calculated the commission on a day-wise basis from the date of payment till the end of the financial year. However, since it is established that the loan provided by the appellant were not bogus then the very basis of addition does not sustain. However, in the interest of revenue and respectfully, following the findings and decision of Settlement Commission, out of total loans disbursed by the appellant 10% are considered to be accommodation entries and a uniform rate of commission being 3.6% is added to the total income of the appellant. Accordingly, out of total loan disbursed amounting to Rs.30,68,93,809/-, loan of Rs.3,06,89,380/- is considered to be accommodation entries and commission of Rs.11,04,817/- Is hereby added to the total income of the appellant (3,06,89,380/- 3.6%). Accordingly, these grounds of appeal are partly allowed.”
It is in this identical factual backdrop that both the Revenue as well as the assessee have filed their instant seven cross appeals each before the tribunal.
Learned counsel at this stage seeks to canvas the assessee’s legal ground that all these seven assessments dated 29.09.2021 framed in its case are non-est in the eyes of law for want of valid section 153D approval by the prescribed authority. He further seeks to buttress the point that the said prescribed authority ought to have granted a separate approval for each assessment year then a common one which renders the assessment herein as invalid in law. We are afraid that the assessees’ instant legal ground hardly carries any merit in light of legislative amendment by way of section 292BC inserted in the Act by the Finance Act, 2026 w.r.e from 01.04.2021 to the effect that such approvals would not be treated as invalid ones for want of sufficiency of reasons or any defect in the form or manner of authentication etc; as the case may be. We thus reject the assessee's instant first and foremost legal ground/argument in very terms.
Next comes the sole surviving issue on merits regarding the assessment of the assessee’s alleged commission component in all of its accommodation entries; be it provided by way of loans to M/s. DAG Group itself or third parties; (supra). We are of the considered view that both the learned lower authorities haven’t discussed the corresponding marketing comparables in such an accommodation entry segment which does not always carry higher profit margins. The fact also remains that the assessee all along has tried to get the impugned addition deleted in totality than pleading and prevent its commission income component in all of its alleged accommodation entries. We therefore, deem it appropriate in these peculiar facts that the learned Assessing Officer’s action invoking the twin commission rates i.e. 0.9% and 3.6% or that of the learned CIT(A) applying uniform rate @ 3.6%; respectively, do not deserve to be concurred in entirety in these facts and circumstances. We thus invoke the tribunal’s inherent section 254(1) jurisdiction to direct the learned Assessing Officer to assess the assessee’s impugned commission entries at a uniform rate of 0.15% only with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. Ordered accordingly.
No other ground or argument has been pressed before us.
These Revenue’s seven appeals ITA Nos.3166 to 3172/Del/2026 are dismissed and the assessee’s cross appeals in ITA Nos.3573 to 3579/Del/2026 are partly allowed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in respective case files.