2025 (5) TMI 963 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of additions made u/s 153C - Addition u/s 68 - HELD THAT - The onus is on the assessee which has been incorrectly shifted to AO by the CIT(A). Thus it shall be open to the assessee to place arguments and adduce evidences as may be considered expedient to defend its stand on the subject matter of dispute. As per its captioned cross-objections the assessee has sought to impugn the jurisdiction assumed u/s 153C of the Act. Complete facts are not available before the Tribunal to support the objections raised. The assessee has not demonstrated before the Tribunal as to how the jurisdiction assumed u/s 153C of the Act is plagued with any infirmity and consequent additions so made are unsustainable in any manner. We are thus not in a position to make comments at this stage. It shall be open to the assessee to raise such plea before the CIT(A) in accordance with law. CIT(A) shall adjudicate the issue raised towards validity of additions made u/s 153C of the Act by passing a speaking order.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in the appeals and cross-objections arising from assessment years 2014-15 to 2017-18, following a search action on the assessee company, are as follows:

• Whether additions made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on a protective basis in respect of accommodation entries routed through the assessee company's bank accounts are sustainable in the absence of a finding that the assessee is the owner of such credits.
• Whether commission income estimated and assessed on the assessee company for providing accommodation entries is justified, given that the controlling persons behind the company have already been assessed for such income.
• Whether the onus to prove ownership of funds credited in the assessee company's bank accounts lies on the assessee or the Revenue, particularly in the context of the company being a conduit or entry provider.
• Whether the jurisdiction exercised under section 153C of the Act for making the assessment is valid and sustainable.
• Whether the assessment orders passed on the assessee company are maintainable considering the company's status-specifically, its striking off and subsequent restoration by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).
• Whether the assessment proceedings and additions are sustainable in the absence of incriminating documents directly relating to the assessee company.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Sustainability of Additions under Section 68 on Protective Basis

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 68 of the Act places the burden on the assessee to explain the nature and source of any unexplained cash credits. The principle that the ownership of funds is a precondition for making additions under section 68 is well-established. The corporate veil doctrine and the requirement for lifting it only upon sufficient evidence are also relevant.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions under section 68 on a protective basis, holding the assessee company as a conduit used to route accommodation entries. The CIT(A) reversed these additions, reasoning that the AO did not establish ownership of the credits by the assessee company and that the company merely acted as a pass-through entity.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) erred in shifting the onus from the assessee to the AO. The onus lies on the assessee to prove that the credits routed through its bank accounts do not belong to it. The Tribunal referred to a coordinate bench decision in a similar case, which held that without a conclusive finding that the ultimate beneficiaries have been assessed on a substantive basis, the CIT(A) could not have granted relief to the assessee.

Key Evidence and Findings: The CIT(A) relied on the bank statements showing receipt and immediate transfer of funds to other entities, and the remand report confirming the assessee company was not the owner of the funds. However, there was no finding that the beneficiaries of these funds had been assessed or taxed on a substantive basis.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal emphasized that the corporate veil cannot be lifted cursorily and the onus is on the assessee to establish non-ownership of the funds. Since the CIT(A) did not verify the taxability of the beneficiaries, the relief granted was premature.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) misdirected himself by deleting additions without verifying finality of assessments against beneficiaries. The assessee contended the company was only a conduit and not the owner of the funds. The Tribunal found the Revenue's argument persuasive, noting the absence of proof from the assessee.

Conclusion: The Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing that the assessee must discharge the onus of proving ownership or non-ownership of the credits, and that the CIT(A) must verify the taxability of the beneficiaries before deciding on the additions.

Issue 2: Assessment of Commission Income on the Assessee Company

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Income earned by a company must be assessed in its hands unless it can be established that the income belongs to others controlling or managing the company. The principle that income assessed on the wrong person does not preclude assessment on the correct person is well-recognized.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The AO estimated commission income on the assessee company for providing accommodation entries. The CIT(A) reversed this addition, holding that the commission income accrued to the controlling persons behind the company and not the company itself.

The Tribunal observed that since the entries were routed through the assessee company, a distinct legal entity, the income earned by way of commission could be taxed in its hands. However, the CIT(A) had accepted that the controlling persons had already been assessed for this income.

Key Evidence and Findings: The remand report and other material identified the controlling persons as earning the commission income. There was no evidence that the commission income was earned by the assessee company itself.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal noted the principle that income assessed on the wrong person does not bar assessment on the right person. However, since the controlling persons were already assessed, the addition on the assessee company was not sustainable.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue contended that the assessee company, as a distinct legal entity, should be assessed for commission income. The CIT(A) and Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention that the income belonged to the controlling persons.

Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of commission income addition on the assessee company, subject to verification of assessments on controlling persons.

Issue 3: Onus of Proof Regarding Ownership of Funds

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The burden of proof under section 68 lies on the assessee to satisfactorily explain the nature and source of cash credits. The corporate veil can only be pierced upon cogent evidence.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal reiterated that the onus is on the assessee to prove that the credits routed through its bank account do not belong to it. The CIT(A) incorrectly shifted this onus to the AO.

Key Evidence and Findings: The CIT(A) relied on the remand report and bank statements but did not require the assessee to discharge its burden of proof.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal emphasized the necessity for the assessee to place evidence and arguments to defend its position that no rights or obligations arise from the credited entries.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue insisted on the assessee's burden, while the CIT(A) had absolved the assessee prematurely.

Conclusion: The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) to allow the assessee to discharge its burden and for fresh adjudication.

Issue 4: Validity of Jurisdiction under Section 153C

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 153C authorizes assessments consequent to search and seizure operations. Validity depends on compliance with procedural safeguards and existence of incriminating material.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The assessee challenged the jurisdiction assumed under section 153C, contending that the proceedings were not maintainable due to absence of incriminating documents.

Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal found that complete facts were not placed before it to adjudicate this issue.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal declined to comment on the jurisdictional issue at this stage, leaving it open for the assessee to raise the plea before the CIT(A).

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee raised jurisdictional objections; the Revenue did not specifically contest them at this stage.

Conclusion: The CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate the validity of jurisdiction under section 153C by passing a speaking order after giving the assessee an opportunity.

Issue 5: Maintainability of Assessment Orders in View of Company's Status

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The status of a company struck off and later restored by the NCLT affects its capacity to be assessed. Relevant precedents include judgments on the effect of striking off and restoration on assessment proceedings.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the company was struck off by the Registrar of Companies (RoC) on 03.04.2017 and restored by the NCLT on 03.04.2019. The CIT(A) had not examined the maintainability of the assessments in light of this status change.

Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal referred to the coordinate bench decision and the necessity to examine the authority of the assessee to file appeals on behalf of a non-existent company.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal held that this issue requires nuanced consideration and should be examined afresh by the CIT(A).

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee raised maintainability objections; the Revenue did not specifically address them in detail.

Conclusion: The appeals and cross-objections were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on maintainability in light of the company's status.

Issue 6: Sustainability of Additions in Absence of Incriminating Documents

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Additions under section 153C require the existence of incriminating material seized during search. The absence of such material may vitiate the proceedings.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The assessee contended that additions were not relatable to any incriminating documents and thus proceedings under section 153C were not maintainable.

Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal noted incomplete facts were placed before it to verify this contention.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal refrained from expressing any view and left the matter open for the CIT(A) to consider.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee raised this ground; the Revenue did not contest it at this stage.

Conclusion: The CIT(A) was directed to consider this issue in the fresh adjudication.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Tribunal's crucial legal reasoning includes the following verbatim excerpts:

"The onus lays on the assessee companies to establish that entries routed through the bank account of such companies are not owned by them. The corporate veil cannot be lifted cursorily. The onus has not been discharged by the assessee at all. In the absence of any finding on the taxability of entries in the hands of beneficiaries, we are not in a position to either sustain the action of the Ld.CIT(A) or dislodge the action of the Ld.CIT(A). It will thus equitable to restore the appeal to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for adjudication afresh in accordance with law."

"It is for the assessee to own up and take a stand as to how no rights or obligations arise to it from the entries credited in the books of accounts and received by it through banking channel. The onus is on the assessee which has been incorrectly shifted to AO by the CIT(A). Thus, it shall be open to the assessee to place arguments and adduce evidences as may be considered expedient to defend its stand on the subject matter of dispute."

"The CIT(A) shall determine various issues reflected in the Revenue's appeal as well as in the cross-objections in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The respective first appellate orders are thus set aside and restored for fresh adjudication in accordance with law by the Ld.CIT(A)."

Core principles established include:

• The burden under section 68 lies on the assessee to prove ownership or non-ownership of credited funds.
• The corporate veil is not to be pierced without cogent evidence.
• Protective additions under section 68 cannot be deleted without verifying substantive assessments against ultimate beneficiaries.
• Commission income must be assessed in the hands of the entity that actually earns it, but assessment on the wrong person does not bar assessment on the correct person.
• Jurisdictional challenges under section 153C require complete facts and proper adjudication.
• The status of the assessee company (struck off/restored) is material to the maintainability of assessment proceedings.

Final determinations on each issue are that all appeals and cross-objections are restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present evidence and arguments on all points, including ownership of funds, commission income, jurisdictional validity, maintainability of assessments, and existence of incriminating material.