IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Assessment Year: 2010-11)

Blueray Trading Pvt. Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner of Vs.

306, Snehadisha, Parawadi, Income-tax, Highway Road, Thane-400601 Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad [PAN : AAFCM 8859 D]

(Appellant) .. (Respondent Appellant by : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 16.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 25.09.2025

O R D E R

PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-

Delay Condoned.

This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated

30.08.2023 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad (‘Ld. CIT(A)’ in short), under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ in short), relating to the Assessment Year 2010-11.

2. The assessee has raised following grounds:-

“1. The Ld. AO erred in law and on facts in making addition of Rs. 33,50,000/- treating the same as commission expenses paid by the Appellant for availing the alleged accommodation entries to the tune of Rs.6.70 crores.

2. The Ld. AO erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the subject matter of paying the alleged commission expenses have been deleted by the CIT(A) and hence, the same could not be added to the total income of the Appellant.

3. The Ld. AO erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the order of the AO got merged with the order of the CIT(A) and hence, no addition could be made on account of alleged commission expenses paid by the Appellant.

4 The Ld. AO erred in law in not appreciating the judicial dictum that what cannot be done directly under the law, cannot be done indirectly by taking recourse to any other section of the Act.”

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had originally filed its return of income u/s 139 of the Act on 29.09.2010, declaring a total income of Rs.1,03,630/-. The case was reopened by issuing notice u/s 148 on 29.03.2017, and reassessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 27.11.2017, wherein an addition of Rs.6,70,00,000/- was made under section 68 of the Act, on account of share capital and premium received from companies alleged to be controlled by one Shri Shirish Chandrakant Shah, an accommodation entry provider. Subsequently, the Pri. CIT (Central), Ahmedabad passed an order u/s 263 of the Act on 30.03.2021, setting aside the reassessment order on the ground that the Assessing Officer failed to examine commission expenses allegedly paid for availing the accommodation entries. The Pr. CIT directed the Assessing Officer to examine and add commission expenses @5% of Rs.6,70,00,000/-, i.e. Rs.33,50,000/-, not disclosed by the assessee. Pursuant to the 263 order, the Assessing Officer passed a fresh assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 dated

20.12.2021, making the impugned addition of Rs.33,50,000/-.

4. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), relying on subsequent findings in AYs 2013- 14 and 2015-16 and the conduct of the assessee in availing accommodation entries, confirmed the addition of Rs.33,50,000/-.

5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal.

6. The Ld. AR submitted that the addition of Rs.33.50 lakhs under Section 69C is based solely on estimated commission, without any evidence of actual payment by the assessee. The Ld. AR also submitted that there is no entry in the books, no cash flow, and no corroborative material to support the allegation. The Ld. AR argued that estimating commission at 5% without any transactional evidence is arbitrary and not stainable u/s 69C of the Act and no enquiry or investigation was done to establish incurrence of such expenditure.

7. On the other hand, the Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the addition of Rs.33.50 lakhs is justified based on the statement of Shri Shirish Shah re