2014 (3) TMI 961 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - assessee has received bogus accommodation entries - Held that - The undisputed fact is that the Assessing Officer has not conducted any enquiry in this case. The assessee has given evidence and documents such as share application form, confirmation letters, copy of tax returns, balance sheets, affidavits etc. which are listed in para 5 of this order. There is no investigation much less enquiry made by the Assessing Officer. There is no evidence with the Assessing Officer to disbelieve the evidences and documents filed by the assessee. Mere rejection of these evidences on the ground that the assessee has created a paper trial is not correct. The assessee has discharged the burden of proof that lay on it. Now the onus shifted to revenue and this in our view was not discharged by the AO. The Assessing Officer in this case did not conduct any enquiry or investigation, but merely rejected the evidence given by the assessee. This is not permissible in law. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Reopening of assessment, Burden of proof, Investigation by Assessing Officer, Addition of income under section 68, Reliance on case laws

Reopening of assessment:
The appeal was against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) concerning the reopening of assessment by the Assessing Officer under section 148. The Assessing Officer added an amount as income under section 68, alleging that the assessee received bogus accommodation entries. The appellant challenged the reopening, arguing that it had submitted various documents to discharge its burden of proof.

Burden of proof and Investigation by Assessing Officer:
The appellant submitted documents such as share application forms, confirmations, balance sheets, affidavits, etc., to prove the genuineness of the transactions. However, the Assessing Officer did not conduct any investigation or enquiry into the matter. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer did not have any evidence to disbelieve the documents provided by the assessee. Mere rejection of evidence without investigation was deemed impermissible in law.

Addition of income under section 68:
The Departmental Representative argued that the addition was justified based on information from the investigation wing, considering the entries as accommodation entries. However, the Tribunal emphasized that the Assessing Officer's failure to conduct any inquiry rendered the addition unjustified. The Tribunal referenced various case laws, including CIT vs. Victor Electrodes Ltd., CIT vs. Pradeep Gupta, and others, to support the principle that when the assessee provides evidence of share application money and the source of funds, the burden shifts to the revenue authorities to disprove it.

Reliance on case laws:
The Tribunal extensively discussed case laws such as CIT vs. Jay Dee Securities and Finance Ltd., CIT vs. Gangeshwari Metal P. Ltd., and others to establish the legal principles governing the burden of proof in cases of unexplained cash credits under section 68. The Tribunal differentiated the facts of the present case from those in other judgments and concluded that the addition in question should be deleted based on the principles laid down in the referenced case laws.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, emphasizing that the Assessing Officer's failure to conduct a proper investigation and the assessee's submission of relevant documents shifted the burden of proof to the revenue authorities. Relying on established legal principles from various case laws, the Tribunal held that the addition of income under section 68 was unwarranted and deleted the same in favor of the assessee.

---