IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 468 to 470/Del/2025 (Assessment Years: 2016-17 to 2018-19)

Seemsan Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, CC-29, 4/287, Vivek Khand, Room No. 322, ARA Gomti Nagar, Centre, Jhandewalan Extn Uttar Pradesh – 226010 Delhi – 110055 (cid:1)थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AAOCS0883J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Sh. Dharmendra Kumar, CA Respondent by : Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT (DR)

Date of Hearing 15.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 O R D E R PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:

These appeals preferred by the Assessee against the orders of the Ld.

Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as the First Appellate Authority or ‘the ld. FAA’ for short) in appeals filed before him against the orders of the ld. Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO, for short) passed u/s 143(3)/153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Further details of the orders of the lower authorities are as under: -

2. Heard and perused the record. The appeals involve similar question of law and based on similar facts. AY: 2016-17 facts and orders shall be considered for disposal of these appeals. During the years involved appellant was engaged in trading gold and jewellery etc. and the case of the assessee was subject to search assessment u/s 153C of the Act. Search and seizure was carried out on Himanshu Verma on 13.04.2017. During the search on Himanshu Verma it was allegedly found that various shell companies were being operated and managed by him for providing accommodation entries in lieu of commission. The list of 66 companies were examined. Action u/s

153A was proposed in case of 38 companies. The assessee has alleged to have received credits from bogus companies namely M/s Gladiolus Clothing Pvt. Ltd, M/s Heerak Clothing Pvt. Ltd., M/s Azalea Clothing Pvt. Ltd. controlled by Himanshu Verma. Allegedly these credits were transferred to beneficiaries and assessee had earned commission income @ 4% for which addition is made.

3. Now before us the primary contention as raised was that merely on the statements recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act and without any corroborating evidences the additions have been made. In this context, the conclusion of ld.

CIT(A) in AY: 2016-17 are reproduced below:

“9. Grounds No. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6: These grounds pertain to issue of addition of Rs.25,48,723/- as commission income. The AO in the assessment order has observed that Search and Seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act was conducted in the case of Shri Himanshu Verma group in 2012 and subsequently once again on 13.04.2017. On the basis of analysis of seized material found during search, it was found that Shri Himanshu Verma has been providing accommodation entries in the form of unsecured loans/share premium/purchase bills etc. to various beneficiaries through several paper companies managed and controlled by him. The appellant company M/s Seemsan Impex Private Limited is appearing at serial no. 156 in the list of companies listed out by the AO in the assessment order. The AO observed that all these companies managed and controlled by Shri Himanshu Verma were engaged in providing accommodation entries in lieu of commission. He observed that on the credits of Rs.6,37,18,080/- the appellant company had earned commission income @ 4% which worked out to Rs.25,48,723/- and which was thus added to the appellant's total income for the year under consideration.

9.1 In its submission during appellate proceedings the appellant objected to the estimation of income and stated that the addition made by the AO was liable to be deleted as profit had been estimated without rejecting books of accounts. It also sought to explain the credit entries by way of being in the nature of receipts on account of loan repayment, advances against sale that could not take place etc.

9.2 The observations of th