2023 (6) TMI 733 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - Addition u/s 68 - accommodation entries receipt - purchases made from M/s Danodia Impex Pvt. Ltd. to be accommodation entries - HELD THAT - Name of the firm M/s Danodia Impex Pvt. Ltd appeared not from the reasons but reply of assessee but assessee was then not show caused to explain how the transaction with firm M/s Danodia Impex Pvt. Ltd. was related to Jain Brothers. AO, unilaterally being dissatisfied with the explanation of assessee had passed the impugned order considering the purchases made from M/s Danodia Impex Pvt. Ltd. to be accommodation entries. Such action of Ld. AO is not sustainable in law. As in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd 2011 (6) TMI 4 - DELHI HIGH COURT and Jet Airways Other 2010 (4) TMI 431 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY where it is held that Ld. AO has jurisdiction to re-assesss issues other than the issues in respect of which proceedings are initiated but AO has to show cause the assessee for the same. AO has failed to take into consideration the fact that the assessee was engaged in the business of Trading of computer parts and component. Purchases were not made from M/s Danodia Impex Pvt. Ltd. only but purchases were also made from other parties as reflected in the purchase account made - sales account made reveals that sales were made to various parties and it included sales made to the Office of Labour Commissioner - The trading account as made available which also reflects various expenditure inconsonance with nature of business of assessee. AO was not justified to discredit whole of the business activity of assessee for want of certain expenditure and that too without specifically rejecting the books of assessee, to discredit the purchases and make addition. Appeal of assessee allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of reassessment proceedings under sections 147 to 151 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Justification of the addition of Rs. 3,44,19,731/- under section 68 of the Act.
3. Compliance with principles of natural justice and proper procedure by the assessing officer (AO).

Summary:

1. Validity of reassessment proceedings under sections 147 to 151 of the Income Tax Act:
The assessee challenged the reassessment order, arguing that the AO did not assume jurisdiction as per law and failed to comply with mandatory conditions under sections 147 to 151. The Tribunal noted that the AO's reasons for reopening the assessment were based on the search and seizure operation on the Jain Brothers and the report of the Investigation Division. However, the AO did not specify the source or nature of the alleged accommodation entry from M/s Danodia Impex Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal found that the reasons recorded were without application of mind and amounted to borrowed satisfaction, which is not sustainable for concluding reassessment. Reliance was placed on judgments such as Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-6 Versus Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. and PR. Commissioner of Income Tax-4 Versus G & G Pharma India Ltd.

2. Justification of the addition of Rs. 3,44,19,731/- under section 68 of the Act:
The AO added Rs. 3,44,19,731/- to the assessee's income under section 68, concluding that the assessee failed to prove genuine business transactions. The Tribunal observed that the AO did not specifically query the assessee about any particular entry from M/s Danodia Impex Pvt. Ltd. The assessee provided purchase and sales invoices, VAT returns, and bank statements showing transactions with M/s Danodia Impex Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal held that the AO's unilateral decision to consider purchases from M/s Danodia Impex Pvt. Ltd. as accommodation entries was not sustainable in law. The AO failed to show cause the assessee to explain the genuineness of the transactions, violating principles established in cases like Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. CIT and CIT vs. Jet Airways.

3. Compliance with principles of natural justice and proper procedure by the AO:
The Tribunal found that the AO did not consider the assessee's business activities and expenses reflected in the trading account, purchase account, and sales account. The AO did not reject the assessee's books of accounts but still discredited the entire business activity. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the CIT(A)'s order, which included irrelevant and extraneous facts. The Tribunal concluded that the AO and CIT(A) failed to follow principles of natural justice and proper procedure.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal sustained the assessee's grounds and allowed the appeal, deleting the impugned addition of Rs. 3,44,19,731/-. The reassessment proceedings were found invalid due to lack of proper reasons and application of mind by the AO. The AO's addition under section 68 was not justified as the assessee provided sufficient evidence of genuine business transactions. The Tribunal emphasized the need for specific show cause notices and adherence to natural justice principles in reassessment proceedings.