2019 (8) TMI 114 - HC - Income Tax

Rejection of Book u/s 145(3) - cash sale of silver - allegation of providing accommodation entry - AO hold that there was no silver at all and the story of purchase and sale of silver is entirely concocted - HELD THAT - In the present case the sales of over ₹ 30 crores in one case and ₹ 40 crores in another being put forth entirely as cash sales had no valid basis in the books of accounts. It was obligatory on the Assessees to satisfactorily account for the creditworthiness, identity and genuineness of the transactions of the so-called providers of such cash to each of them in such huge sums. Plainly this was not forthcoming and the AO rightly therefore disregarded the accounts of both Assessees u/s 145 (3). The satisfaction recorded by the AO in the present cases that the books of account maintained by each Assessee deserved to be rejected cannot, in the circumstances, be said to be perverse. In Kachwala Gems Jaipur v. JCIT 2006 (12) TMI 83 - SUPREME COURT it was held that the AO can reject the assessment u/s 145 (3) if he finds that there are defects in the books of accounts and where bogus purchases are shown by the Assessee in order to reduce gross profit. In the present cases, the discussion of the evidence on record both by the CIT (A) and the ITAT is found to be cryptic and without adverting properly to the facts referred to by the AO. - In the considered view of the Court, the AO rightly rejected the books of accounts of both Assessees and the additions made by him are required to be restored. - revenue appeals allowed

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
- Validity of the assessment orders for the Assessment Year 1998-99
- Rejection of account books by the Assessing Officer
- Failure to prove the identity of buyers in cash sales transactions
- Compliance with disclosure requirements during scrutiny

Interpretation of Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The case involved appeals by the Revenue against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal concerning the application of Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The central question was whether the ITAT erred in confirming the order passed by the CIT (A) that Section 145(3) was not applicable. The Court analyzed the evidence and concluded that the Assessees failed to substantiate the cash sales transactions, amounting to significant sums, with valid basis in their books of accounts. The Court held that the AO rightfully rejected the accounts under Section 145(3) due to the lack of satisfactory explanation regarding the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions.

Validity of the assessment orders for the Assessment Year 1998-99:
The Court reviewed the assessment orders for the Assessment Year 1998-99, where the AO had rejected the accounts of the Assessees based on discrepancies related to cash sales transactions. It was observed that the Assessees failed to provide complete names and addresses of buyers for the substantial amounts involved in the transactions. The Court found that the AO's decision to reject the accounts was justified, and the additions made by the AO needed to be reinstated.

Rejection of account books by the Assessing Officer:
The AO rejected the account books of the Assessees under Section 145(3) due to their inability to substantiate the cash sales transactions with proper documentation. Despite multiple opportunities provided to the Assessees to clarify the transactions, they failed to provide satisfactory details. The Court upheld the AO's decision to reject the account books, emphasizing the importance of maintaining accurate and verifiable records.

Failure to prove the identity of buyers in cash sales transactions:
The Assessees were unable to prove the identity of the buyers in cash sales transactions involving substantial amounts of money. The Court noted that the lack of documentation regarding the buyers raised doubts about the genuineness of the transactions. The failure to establish the identities of the buyers led to the rejection of the accounts by the AO, which was upheld by the Court.

Compliance with disclosure requirements during scrutiny:
During the scrutiny process, the Assessees were repeatedly asked to provide detailed information about the cash sales transactions, including names and addresses of buyers. Despite multiple requests and opportunities given by the AO, the Assessees failed to comply with the disclosure requirements. The Court highlighted the importance of transparency and compliance with disclosure obligations during tax assessments.

Overall, the Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the orders of the ITAT and CIT (A) and restoring the assessment orders of the AO for the Assessment Year in question. The judgment emphasized the need for Assessees to maintain accurate records, substantiate transactions, and comply with disclosure requirements to avoid rejection of accounts under Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.