Ita/930/2016 Of Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax- 13 v. Rakesh Gupta

r $~*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI14. 15 & 16 + ITA 929/2016 + + Signature Not Verified Digitally SignedBy:AMULYA ITA 929, 930&931/2016 CORAM:JUSTICE S.MURALIDHARJUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR ORDER o/o 25.04.2017 CM 47013/2016 (exemption^ in ITA 929/2016CM 47014/2016 (exemption) in ITA 930/2016Allowed,subjectto alljust exceptions. ITA 929/2016ITA 930/2016ITA 931/2016 1. On 24^^ January, 2017 while admitting these appeals, the followingquestionof law was framed: "Did the IT AT fall into error in upholding the reduction ofgross commissionfrom 5.67% to 2%, calculatedby the CIT(A), in the circumstancesof the case." 2. ITAT on appeal by the Revenue upheld the finding of CIT(A) byobserving that there is no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) for theAssessmentYears ('AYs') 2008- 2009to 2009- 2010. 3. The AO in this case undertook a detailed exercise of examining everyaccommodationentry and came to the conclusion that the commissionearned by the Assessee would be around 5.67 %. The CommissionerofIncome Tax (Appeals)gave detailedreasons for not agreeingwith the AOand observed that "there is no set formula or fixed rate of commission inaccommodationentries and such rates are varying based on the practices andthe need."The CIT(A)reducedthe commissionto 2% and this was affirmedby the ITAT. 4. The Court has heard the submissionsof Mr Dileep Shivpuri, SeniorStandingCounselappearingfor the Revenueat lengthand has examinedtheorders of the AO, the CIT (A) and the ITAT. 5. It is seen that the ITAT in the impugnedorderhas while affirmingtheorderofthe CIT (A) given detailedreasons.AlthoughMr. Shivpurisoughttothis Courtthatthe said the ITATwasthe persuadereasoningby perverse,Court is not so persuadedto agree. Amongstthe reasonsthatweighedwiththe ITAT were thatthe Assesseethe onthe fictitiousbills.purchased goodsFurther,the Assesseesubmittedthe purchaseletteras well as the sale bill.The Assesseewascommissionfrom entries ofsales earning bogus issuingbills and then buyingpurchasebills. In the circumstances,the reductionofby the ITATofthe percentageofcommissionfrom 5.67%as determinedbyAO to 2% could not be said to be so improbable or perverse so as to warrantinterference by this Court. 6. The questionis answeredin the negativei.e., in favour of the Assesseeand against the Revenue. 7. The appealsare, accordingly,dismissed S.MURALIDHAR,J APRIL 25, 2017rd GRANDER SHEKHAR, J