9911796707🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-July-2025 at 23:59:59
⏳ Loading countdown...
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please let us know
via our feedback form
, with specific details, so we can address them promptly.
Follow us:
|
Home
2025 (6) TMI 295 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 68 - accommodation entries received from the entities - proprietor of these entities has himself admitted in his statement recorded on oath u/s. 131 of IT Act that all the business concerns in his name are paper concerns and do not carry out any kind of sale/purchase of goods - HELD THAT - As seen that in a sum was given by the assessee company on 22.11.2012 to M/s. Krishna Enterprises and the same was received back by the assessee through banking channels. As per the assessee this transaction represented a short term advance given by the assessee to M/s. Krishna Enterprises through banking channels and within a short period of time the amount was received back by the assessee. Therefore it is seen that the entry was also squared off in the books of accounts during the same Financial Year itself. Given the aforesaid facts Ld. CIT(A) has correctly observed that the AO did not bring on record any specific evidences to show as to how in the instant facts there was any evasion of any taxes by the assessee. Accordingly CIT(A) has correctly observed and held that the Department has not been able to establish any tax evasion by the assessee. Accordingly we find no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) so as to call for any interference. Entry pertaining to M/s. Radhe Corporation - No infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) that the Department did not have any material evidence to substantiate that the assessee company had received funds from M/s. Radhe Corporation. However in order to meet the interests of Revenue Ld. CIT(A) treated 10% GP of the above payments as additional income of the assessee and confirmed the addition to this extent. Even before us during the course of hearing the Department has not brought forth any substantial evidence to prove that the assessee company had received funds from M/s. Radhe Corporation as alleged by the Assessing Officer. On going through the case records we find no such evidence that the assessee company had received funds from M/s. Radhe Corporation. Accordingly we are of the considered view that Ld. CIT(A) has taken a reasonable approach by restricting the disallowance to 10% of GP. Addition u/s 68 - CIT(A) has taken a reasonable approach in the matter and has correctly observed that the assessee has been able to establish that genuine sales were made by the assessee to the various parties under consideration. The sales made by the assessee were supported by various documents like copy of ledger confirmation of concerned parties copy of invoices / bills copy of transporter bills etc. and accordingly we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) so as to call for any interference. Before us Ld. DR has not brought any evidence to controvert the findings made by Ld. CIT(A).
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered by the Appellate Tribunal (AT) in these appeals for Assessment Years (A.Y.) 2013-14 and 2019-20 are:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Legitimacy of additions on account of accommodation entries for A.Y. 2013-14 Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 68 of the Income Tax Act permits the AO to treat unexplained cash credits or entries as income if the assessee fails to satisfactorily explain the nature and source of such credits. Accommodation entries, which are sham transactions to evade tax, are not permissible. Statements under Section 131 can be used as evidence but require corroboration. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The AO made additions totaling Rs. 28,75,550/- on account of transactions with M/s. Krishna Enterprises and M/s. Radhe Corporation, entities controlled by a known accommodation entry provider, Shri Sanjay Tibrewal. The AO relied on statements recorded under Section 131 and seized documents to conclude that these were bogus transactions. The Ld. CIT(A) examined the facts and found that the Rs. 7,50,000/- transaction with M/s. Krishna Enterprises was a short-term loan advanced by the assessee and received back within the same financial year through banking channels. The AO failed to produce specific evidence such as cash vouchers or receipts to establish the transactions as accommodation entries. Therefore, the addition on this account was deleted. Regarding the Rs. 21,25,550/- transaction with M/s. Radhe Corporation, the assessee denied any transaction. The AO pointed to bank account withdrawals by Radhe Corporation but failed to establish that funds were received by the assessee. The CIT(A) noted absence of narration in bank statements linking these funds to the assessee and found no material evidence of receipt. However, to safeguard revenue interests, 10% of the gross profit on such payments was treated as income and added. Key evidence and findings: Bank statements, ledger accounts, absence of specific cash transaction evidence, and failure of AO to establish direct receipt of funds from Radhe Corporation to the assessee. Application of law to facts: The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the AO's additions were not supported by concrete evidence of tax evasion. The short-term loan was squared off within the same year, negating the presumption of accommodation entry. The partial addition of 10% GP was a reasonable compromise where suspicion existed but proof was lacking. Treatment of competing arguments: The Department argued that the entities were controlled by an accommodation entry provider and that the transactions were designed to evade tax. The assessee relied on documentary evidence and the absence of direct proof of cash transactions. The Tribunal favored the latter given the lack of specific evidence from the AO. Conclusions: The Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeal for A.Y. 2013-14, upholding the deletion of Rs. 7,50,000/- and restricting addition to 10% GP on the Radhe Corporation transaction. Issue 2: Legitimacy of additions on account of accommodation entries for A.Y. 2019-20 Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 68 again governs unexplained credits. The genuineness of transactions must be established by the assessee through cogent evidence including invoices, transport documents, ledger confirmations, and other documentary proof. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The AO added Rs. 41,43,671/- under Section 68 on account of accommodation entries from entities controlled by the same accommodation entry provider. The CIT(A) found that the assessee had produced substantial documentary evidence including sales bills, e-way bills, transporter bills, and party confirmations establishing that genuine sales were made to these parties. Key evidence and findings: Copies of ledger confirmations, invoices, transporter bills, and other documents supporting the genuineness of sales transactions. Application of law to facts: The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A) that the assessee had discharged the onus of proving the genuineness of transactions. The absence of contradictory evidence from the Department further supported this conclusion. Treatment of competing arguments: The Department contended that the assessee failed to explain the use of intermediary entities and did not furnish supporting documents such as agreements or transportation bills. However, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had produced adequate evidence and the Department failed to rebut the same. Conclusions: The Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeal for A.Y. 2019-20, deleting the majority of the addition under Section 68. Issue 3: Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) The judgment does not explicitly deal with the penalty proceedings initiated under Section 271(1)(c) in detail. However, the deletion of additions and acceptance of genuineness of transactions by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal imply that penalty proceedings would not sustain in absence of proved concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS "The entry was already squared off in the books of accounts during the current FY, therefore, this does not amount to any accommodation entries." "The AO did not bring any specific evidence such as cash voucher/cash receipts relatable to the assessee company in the search premises of Sanjay Tibrewal to authenticate that the above accommodation entry was taken in lieu of cash." "In the given facts & circumstances and to meet the interests of revenue, I hereby treat 10 % GP of the above payments as additional income of the assessee which comes to Rs. 2,12,585/- and the addition to this extent is hereby confirmed and the balance amount is hereby deleted." "The assessee has been able to establish that genuine sales were made by the assessee to the various parties under consideration. The sales made by the assessee were supported by various documents like copy of ledger confirmation of concerned parties, copy of invoices / bills, copy of transporter bills etc." Core principles established include:
Final determinations:
|
