IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘G’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Suresh Kumar Vs. The A.C.I.T.

R/o H.No. 2018, Circle -2(1)(1)

Moh. Brij Vihar Arya Nagar Ghaziabad Gandhi Colony, Murad Nagar Ghaziabad [UP]

PAN: ACDPK 0970 C ITA No. 5064/DEL/2024 [A.Y 2012-13] ITA No. 5065/DEL/2024 [A.Y 2013-14]

The I.T.O. Vs. Suresh Kumar Ward -2(2)(2) R/o H.No. 2018, Ghaziabad [UP] Moh. Brij Vihar Arya Nagar Gandhi Colony, Murad Nagar Ghaziabad [UP]

PAN: ACDPK 0970 C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee By : Ms. Rano Jain, Adv Shri Tanishq Ahuja, Adv Department By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 30.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 30.10.2025 Suresh Kumar

ORDER

PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, AM :-

The above captioned four cross appeals by the assessee and the Revenue are directed against four separate orders of the CIT/NFAC dated 11.09.2024 and 12.09.2014 for A.Ys 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively.

2. Since these appeals pertain to same assessee and involve common issues, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.

ITA No. 5121/DEL/2024 [A.Y 2012-13](Assesse appeal)

ITA No. 5064/DEL/2024 [A.Y 2012-13](Revenue appeal)

3. At the very outset, we find that the Assessing Officer has made addition in all these appeals considering the sales receipts as bogus entries and has assessed the income at Rs 8,14,63,008/- u/s 143(3) r.w. 147 as against RoI filed in response to notice u/s 148 declaring income of Rs 4,41,150/- for AY 2012-13. On appeal, the CIT(A) found that the assessee is in the business of providing accommodation entries, without delivery of goods, for a commission. The CIT(A), further found that the AO for AY 2011-12, on identical facts, had assessed the income of the assessee on estimate basis @ 8% of the total credit entries in the bank Suresh Kumar account and the CIT(A) for AY 2011-12, had computed the estimate income @ 5% of the credit entries in the bank account. Following the decision of CIT(A) for AY 2011-12, the CIT(A)/NFAC, estimated the income @ 5% of gross receipt considering the same as undisclosed turnover for AY 2012-13.

4. Now both the assessee and the Revenue are aggrieved by the part relief given by the ld. CIT(A). The Revenue has challenged the estimation of 5% of turnover as income instead of entire receipts while the assessee has disputed the estimation of 5% as excessive and have come in appeal before us.

5. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. We find that the ld. CIT(A) has given a categorical finding at page 30 of his order which reads as under:

“I have gone through the submission and same has been perused. It is pertinent to note that the appellate do the work for receipt entry of commission and get the commission for accommodation entry without delivered any goods. It is also noted that the appellant had deposited total credit entry in the OBC Bank account of Rs. 19,43,22,158/- against the turnover of Rs. 11,36,54,514/- for the said year. Since, the appellant being the director of the above company and doing similar nature of transaction in Bank Accounts which has been shown in the books of accounts as receipt of payment Suresh Kumar on commission account for the said year. It is also noted that the said company has been strike off and no business activity was carried out as on date. There are dummy directors in the company and all has been quit.

However, it is also noted that A.Y. 2011-12 on the same ground of ADIT (Investigation) New Delhi report the case was re-open u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act and on the unexplained credit entry of Rs. 2,88,89,733/- in the bank account then the AO assessed the income estimated basis @8% income of Rs. 23,11,178/-. Further, the appellant filed the appeal before the CIT(A) against the said assessment order. In respect of the same, the CIT (A), Ghaziabad passed the appellate order dated 30.09.20