IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.स/ं .I.T.A No.3371/Del/2023 िनधा(cid:9)रणवष(cid:9)/Assessment Year: 2012-13 DCIT, बनाम VINOD KUMAR Room No.345, Vs. H.No.241, Village Mundlana, Income Tax Office, Tehsil, Gohana, District Sonipat, ARA Centre, Jhandewalan, Haryana.

New Delhi. PAN No.AOZPK9771K अपीलाथ(cid:20) Appellant (cid:22)(cid:23)यथ(cid:20)/Respondent Revenue by Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR Assessee by Shri Amit Rustagi, CA सनु वाईक(cid:8)तारीख/ Date of hearing: 04.08.2025 उ(cid:14)ोषणाक(cid:8)तारीख/Pronouncement on 26.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD, J.M.

This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld.

CIT(Appeals)-23, New Delhi dated 27.09.2023 for the AY 2012-13 in deleting the addition made in the assessment order.

2. Heard rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 144/147 of the Act dated 18.12.2019 bringing to tax Rs.4,19,09,065/- being 10% of Rs.41,90,90,650/- as commission income holding that the assessee was one of the beneficiaries of accommodation entries from various parties referred to in the assessment order in the absence of any details, explanations furnished by the assessee before the Assessing Officer.

3. On appeal the Ld. CIT(Appeals) restricted the addition to Rs.83,818/- after considering the submissions and evidences furnished by the assessee observing as under:

“16. As accepted by appellant in reply of questionno.36, 37 and 38 and also mentioned in para 5.3 of assessment order above, appellant himself admitted that he was involved in cash transaction activities and earned commission @ Rs.2,000/- per crores on such transactions. The Assessing Officer accepted the facts admitted by the appellant in his statement and accordingly, commission income was calculated @2,000/- per crore while making assessment foray 2013-14 and AY 2016-17 to 2018-19. Details of addition made on account of commission in various AYs are as under:

17. During the year under consideration i.e. AY 2012-13, Assessing Officer assumed commission income @10% of cash transaction of Rs.41,90,90,650/-. The reason for assuming commission @10% is neither discussed nor mentioned in assessment order passed. In anyway, the commission income assessed by the AO for the impugned year is on the higher side. As per the rule of consistency, the AO ought to have maintained consistency in computing income from the transactions if the facts of the case are the same.

18. I have considered facts of the case as well as written submissions of the appellant. It is observed that income of the appellant has been assessed by accepting ‘commission income @Rs.2,000/- per crore’ as admitted by appellant in his statement (for assessment orders u/s 153A for AY 2013-14, 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19). It is observed that there is no material change in facts and circumstances in the present case. Accordingly, commission income of appellant for AY 2012-13 is restricted @ Rs.2,000/- per crore as considered by AO during assessment proceedings for AY 2013-14 and 2016-17 to 2018-19. 19. The Assessing Officer has held that appellant has given accommodation entry amounting to Rs.41,90,90,650/- during the year under consideration. The income earned by the appellant on account of accommodation entries given @Rs.2,000/- per crore comes to Rs.83,818/-. The addition made by the Assessing Officer is restricted Rs.83,818/-. Accordingly, the appellant get relief of Rs.4,18,25,247/-. 20. In view of the above discussion, the appeal of the appellant in respect of Ground No.7 is partly allowed.”

4. As could be seen from the above, the Ld. CIT(A) restricted the commission income to Rs.83,818/- as against Rs.4,19,09,065/- observing that in the assessments made u/s 153A of the Act in the case of the assessee for assessment years 2013-14 to 2018-19 the commission incom