Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-14 v. M/S Goldstar Finvest Pvt. Ltd

1 / 3 07-ITXA-1729-16.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1729 OF 2016 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-14 .... Appellant versus M/s Goldstar Finvest Pvt. Ltd.... Respondent….... •Mr.Suresh Kumar, Advocate for Appellant.•Mr.M.A. Narvekar, Advocate for Respondent. CORAM : AKIL KURESHI & SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ.: 01[st] APRIL, 2019. DATE P.C. : 1. The Revenue has filed this Appeal challenging theJudgment of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Following questionwas presented for our consideration; “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case and in law, the Hon'ble Tribunal erred inrestricting the addition of Rs.370.69 lakhs made onaccount of unexplained cash credits u/s. 68 of theAct to 0.15% without appreciating that the assessee 2 / 3 07-ITXA-1729-16.odt had failed to furnish satisfactory explanation withregard to the identity of the parties and the sourcesand genuineness of the transactions?” 2. It is undisputed that under similar circumstances a similar question in case of another assessee in similar businesscame up for consideration in Income Tax Appeal No.54/17 andconnected Appeals. Revenue’s Appeals were dismissed on25/03/2019 making following observations; “3.The Assessing Officer adopted the rate ofcommission of 2% on the total turnover, whichorder the CIT (A) confirmed. In further Appeal bythe Assessee, the Tribunal reduced the rate ofcommission to 0.15%. The Tribunal referred to itsown decision in case of the Assessee's sister concernand held that the appropriate rate of commissionshould be 0.15% which is also admitted by theAssessee during search. 4.In our opinion, the entire issue is based on facts.The estimation of the rate of commission of theAssesee would always be subject-matter of someguesswork. No precise formula could be applied.The estimation of the rate of commission of theAssesee would always be subject-matter of someguesswork. No precise formula could be applied. 3 / 3 07-ITXA-1729-16.odt The Tribunal having taken into consideration therelevant factors, has arrived at a certain percentageof commission that any such kind of activities couldbe expected to be derived from. This does not giverise to any substantial question of law. 5.The Revenue also disputes the expenditure allowedby the Tribunal on such activities. Here also, forthe same reasons cited above, in our opinion, noquestion of law arises.by the Tribunal on such activities. Here also, forthe same reasons cited above, in our opinion, noquestion of law arises. 6.In the result, the Appeals are dismissed.” 3. We are conscious that unlike in case No.54/17 andconnected Appeals, in the present case, the Assessing Officer hadadded the entire sum not limiting to the commission charged.However, CIT (A) had applied the percentage of commissiondeleting the rest of the additions. 4. In the result, Income Tax Appeal is dismissed. (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) (AKIL KURESHI, J.)