9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (5) TMI 1088 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 68 - unexplained entries in bank account - Assessee has acted as conduit concern for providing accommodation entries to the beneficiaries - Assessee has failed to produce any concrete and any additional evidence s in support of its contention - HELD THAT - The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Holeon Traders Pvt. Ltd. 2023 (7) TMI 1558 - ITAT DELHI upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the protective addition made by the A.O addition cannot be made in the hands of the conduit companies once the beneficiaries and accommodation entry provider are identified and addition of commission income has already been made in the hands of the accommodation entry provider. Addition made on account of unaccounted commission - CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition on account of commission income as entire net commission income has already been taken into consideration and taxed in the hands of named two individuals.
Issues Presented and Considered
1. Whether the deletion of addition made on account of unexplained entries in the bank account under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was justified, given the assessee's alleged role as a conduit concern facilitating accommodation entries. 2. Whether the deletion of addition made on account of unaccounted commission income earned by the assessee, purportedly acting as a conduit concern charging commission for accommodation entries, was justified. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis Issue 1: Deletion of Addition under Section 68 for Unexplained Bank Entries The legal framework involves Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, which places the onus on the assessee to explain the nature and source of unexplained credits in their bank accounts. The Revenue contended that the assessee, acting as a conduit concern, failed to discharge this onus, justifying the addition of Rs. 9,39,85,001/- as unexplained cash credits. The Court examined prior precedents, notably the co-ordinate bench decision in the case of M/s Holeon Traders Pvt. Ltd., where similar facts were considered. In that case, the Tribunal upheld the deletion of protective additions made by the Assessing Officer, reasoning that once the beneficiaries and accommodation entry providers were identified, the conduit companies could not be held liable for unexplained credits. The Tribunal emphasized that the addition was made on a protective basis, with substantive additions to be made in the hands of the actual beneficiaries. In the instant case, the Tribunal found no material distinction from the Holeon Traders case. The assessee had produced evidence, and the CIT(A) had rightly deleted the additions. The Department failed to place any contrary material to challenge the deletion. The Tribunal also noted that the Assessing Officer's addition was protective and that the substantive additions were to be made in the hands of the beneficiaries, consistent with established principles. The Revenue's arguments were considered but found unpersuasive, particularly in light of the Tribunal's earlier rulings and the lack of additional evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition under section 68, dismissing the Revenue's ground on this issue. Issue 2: Deletion of Addition on Account of Unaccounted Commission Income The second issue concerned the addition of Rs. 2,34,963/- on account of unaccounted commission income at the rate of 0.25%, alleged to be earned by the assessee as a conduit concern facilitating accommodation entries. The Revenue argued that the commission charged was a facade for running the accommodation entry business and that the addition was rightly made. The Tribunal examined the relevant legal principles and prior decisions, especially the co-ordinate bench ruling in Holeon Traders Pvt. Ltd. Initially, the Tribunal had allowed the Revenue's ground, directing addition of commission income at 0.47% of the turnover after elimination of circular transactions. However, a corrigendum was subsequently issued, correcting inadvertent factual errors and reversing the earlier conclusion. The corrigendum clarified that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition on account of commission income, as the net commission income had already been taxed in the hands of the accommodation entry providers (the Jain brothers), and the conduit companies could not be subjected to double taxation on the same income. The Tribunal further noted that this factual position was undisputed before the CIT(A) and the present bench, and the Revenue did not controvert it. The Tribunal also relied on multiple other decisions where identical issues were decided in favor of similarly placed assessees, reinforcing the principle that commission income earned by conduit companies, if already taxed in the hands of the accommodation entry providers, should not be added again. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's attempt to distinguish the facts or rely on earlier orders inconsistent with the corrigendum. The absence of any fresh material to challenge the corrigendum's findings led to dismissal of the Revenue's ground on commission income. Significant Holdings On the issue of unexplained bank credits under section 68, the Tribunal held:
This establishes the principle that protective additions to conduit companies are not sustainable once the actual beneficiaries are identified and substantive additions are made in their hands. Regarding the commission income addition, the Tribunal stated:
This clarifies that double taxation of commission income in the hands of both conduit companies and accommodation entry providers is impermissible, and once taxed in the hands of the latter, the former cannot be subjected to addition on the same account. The Tribunal's final determinations were to dismiss the Revenue's appeals on both grounds for Assessment Years 2013-14 to 2017-18, thereby affirming the orders of the CIT(A) deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer.
|
