2024 (10) TMI 1639 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s. 68 - unexplained entries in bank account - assessee has failed to produce any concrete - CIT(A) deleted the addition - HELD THAT - As the protective additions are made in the hands of the assessee in all the three assessment years under consideration. Assessee company being a conduit company addition was made on protective basis by the AO by observing that the assessee has acted as conduit company for providing accommodation entries to the beneficiaries - Since the addition was made on protective basis and the addition was made substantive basis in the hands of beneficiaries we observed that ld. CIT (A) has deleted the same correctly as it is a fact on record that assessee has acted only as a conduit entity. Accordingly the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. Commission income which was made on substantive basis in the hands of the assessee however it is brought to our notice that Anand Kumar Jain who is the provider of accommodation entries who is the main person has established these dummy and conduit entities and he has earned the commission income and the same was offered to tax and also confirmed in the case of Anand Kumar Jain 2023 (5) TMI 1186 - ITAT DELHI therefore the same income cannot be subject to tax twice. Therefore even on the issue of commission we are not inclined to disturb the findings of the ld. CIT (A). Accordingly this ground of appeal is also dismissed. Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

The issues presented and considered in the judgment are as follows:1. Whether the deletion of additions made on account of undisclosed sources and unaccounted commission by the ld. CIT (A) was justified.2. Whether the commission income charged by the conduit concern was rightly deleted by the ld. CIT (A).3. Whether the orders of the ld. CIT (A) were erroneous and not tenable on facts and in law.Detailed analysis of the issues:The relevant legal framework and precedents considered by the Court include the Income Tax Act and relevant case law on undisclosed income and unaccounted commission.The Court interpreted the facts of the case, where the Revenue had made protective additions in the hands of the assessee based on substantive additions made in the hands of the beneficiaries. The Court reasoned that since the assessee acted as a conduit entity for providing accommodation entries, the additions made on a protective basis were not justified. The Court referred to a decision of a coordinate Bench in a related case involving Anand Kumar Jain to support its reasoning.Key evidence and findings included the submissions of the ld. DR for the Revenue regarding the nature of the accommodation entry provider and relevant additions made by the Assessing Officer. The Court also considered the submissions of the ld. AR for the assessee regarding the taxability of the substantive additions made in the hands of Anand Kumar Jain.The Court applied the law to the facts by analyzing the role of the assessee as a conduit company and the taxability of income already disclosed and offered to tax by Anand Kumar Jain. The Court concluded that the additions made on protective basis in the hands of the assessee were not justified and that the commission income charged by the conduit concern had already been disclosed and offered to tax by Anand Kumar Jain.Competing arguments included the contentions of the Revenue that the additions were justified and should be remitted back to the Assessing Officer for verification. On the other hand, the assessee argued that the substantive additions were already offered to tax by Anand Kumar Jain and supported the findings of the ld. CIT (A).Significant holdings include the Court dismissing the grounds raised by the Revenue regarding the additions made on undisclosed sources and unaccounted commission. The Court upheld the decision of the ld. CIT (A) to delete these additions based on the taxability of the income in the hands of Anand Kumar Jain. The Court also dismissed the appeals for subsequent assessment years based on the similar facts and findings of the lead appeal.Core principles established include the principle that income already disclosed and offered to tax by the main person involved cannot be subject to tax twice, even if it passes through conduit entities.Final determinations on each issue include the dismissal of all three appeals filed by the Revenue based on the findings and reasoning provided in the lead appeal for the assessment year 2013-14.This judgment highlights the importance of considering the substantive taxability of income and the role of conduit entities in tax assessments.