2021 (8) TMI 962 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 - Addition based on evidences collected and statements of various person in search - assessee was one of the entry provider of accommodation entry and provided entries in the nature of bogus transaction in the form of sales/purchases and unsecured loans - HELD THAT - It is pertinent to note that all the documents were before the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer has merely relied upon the statement of Sh. Rajendra Jain which was later on retracted. The assessee has given the details of purchase bills, sales bills, stock register and bank statements and after going through the evidences which was before the Assessing Officer and before us , it is found that the same is tallying with, with the transaction which was allegedly held as bogus transaction by the Assessing Officer . Thus, as per the documents provided by the assessee transaction is genuine, parties were before the search/investigation wherein and there statements on record which does not reflect that the assessee is actual for the of the accommodation entry. The statements were also retracted later on. Thus, the sanctity of the statement cannot be the sole basis for making an addition. The transaction in the present Assessment Year i.e. Assessment Year 2008- 09 is genuine, identity and the credibility has also been established by the assessee. Therefore, Section 68 will not attract and the additions made by the Assessing Officer which was confirmed by the CIT(A) is not just and proper. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction under Section 147
2. Initiation and completion of reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148
3. Addition on account of purchases made from undisclosed sources
4. Enhancement of additions without affording opportunity of being heard
5. Confirmation and enhancement of additions as bogus purchases without rejecting the books under Section 145

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction under Section 147:
The appellant contended that the CIT(A) erred in affirming the jurisdiction of the AO under Section 147, arguing that there was neither any satisfaction of the AO nor quantification of escaped assessment at the time of recording of reasons. The AO relied solely on a vague and scanty report from the Investigation Wing without independent enquiry and judicious application of mind. The Tribunal observed that the AO's reasons recorded were wrong and lacked tangible evidence indicating that the income of the assessee had escaped assessment.

2. Initiation and Completion of Reassessment Proceedings under Section 147/148:
The appellant argued that the reassessment proceedings were initiated and completed without a bona fide or definite 'reason to believe' that certain income had escaped assessment, as required under Section 147. The objections to the initiation of assessment proceedings were disposed of mechanically without passing a speaking order. The Tribunal found that the initiation and completion of reassessment proceedings under Section 148 were bad in law and liable to be quashed.

3. Addition on Account of Purchases Made from Undisclosed Sources:
The AO made additions based on statements from proprietors recorded during a search and seizure operation, without affording the appellant an opportunity to cross-examine the deponents. The CIT(A) further enhanced these additions arbitrarily. The Tribunal noted that the AO relied on the statement of Rajendra Jain, which was later retracted. The appellant provided purchase bills, sales bills, stock registers, and bank statements that tallied with the transactions. The Tribunal concluded that the statements alone could not be the basis for additions, especially when retracted, and the transactions were genuine.

4. Enhancement of Additions without Affording Opportunity of Being Heard:
The appellant contended that the CIT(A) enhanced the additions without affording an opportunity to be heard or to explain. The Tribunal found this to be a gross violation of the principle of natural justice and held that the enhancement of additions was arbitrary and liable to be deleted.

5. Confirmation and Enhancement of Additions as Bogus Purchases without Rejecting the Books under Section 145:
The appellant argued that the CIT(A) confirmed and enhanced the additions as bogus purchases without rejecting the books under Section 145 and without the authority of any specific section of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal observed that the AO accepted the sales of the same items purchased by the assessee and noted that the purchases were made through banking channels. The Tribunal concluded that the addition could not be made for purchases when the sales were accepted as genuine and deleted the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A).

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed all the appeals, holding that the transactions were genuine, the identity and credibility of the parties were established, and the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were not just and proper. The Tribunal's observations and conclusions applied to all the assessment years under consideration, resulting in the allowance of all the appeals.