2012 (9) TMI 691 - AT - Income Tax

Addition of amount reflected as amounts received towards job work and commission from M/s M as income from others on ground of it being accommodation entries - assessment reopened on ground that statement recorded during assessment proceedings of M/s M admits that M/s M was engaged in the business of giving bogus/accommodation entries - Held that - AO as well as the CIT(A) have not provided the assessee with the statement recorded from director of M/s M in the assessment proceedings of another company i.e. M/s M. No opportunity of cross examination was also granted. Under the circumstances the assessee has not been confronted with the evidence gathered behind its back, hence, the statement cannot be the basis on which a conclusion can be drawn that the amounts received from these two companies are infact accommodation entries. In absence of any other evidence, addition made is directed to be deleted Dis-allowance of expenditure on surmise that sales may have been suppressed and the amounts were routed through these two companies - Held that - If this is the case of the A.O, then the question of disallowance of expenditure on the ground that these are accommodation entries and hence do not have any expenditure does not arise. Expenditure incurred on manufacture and sales has to be allowed - Decided in favor of assessee

Summary

Issues:
Reopening of assessment, treatment of received amounts, validity of disallowance of expenditure.

Reopening of Assessment:
The appeal was against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax for the Assessment Year 1999-2000. The assessment was reopened under section 147 of the Income Tax Act based on a statement from another company's director admitting to giving bogus entries. The Assessing Officer treated the amounts received by the assessee from these companies as income from other sources, suspecting sales suppression. The First Appellate Authority upheld the validity of reopening and the assessment, without addressing the argument that the statement was not provided to the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the reopening, deferring the merits for a fresh hearing.

Treatment of Received Amounts:
The assessee challenged the treatment of received amounts as income from other sources, arguing that the statement was not provided and lacked evidence. The Revenue contended that the companies confirmed these as accommodation entries, supported by the director's admission. The Tribunal found that without evidence beyond the statement, the amounts could not be deemed accommodation entries. The failure to confront the assessee with the evidence led to the conclusion that the statement alone was insufficient.

Validity of Disallowance of Expenditure:
Regarding the disallowance of expenditure, the Assessing Officer claimed the assessee suppressed sales and routed proceeds through the companies. The Revenue argued that for accommodation entries, minimal expenditure is incurred, justifying the disallowance. However, the Tribunal found no logic or basis for the ad hoc disallowance of expenditure. Since there was no proof of accommodation entries and no explanation for the disallowance, the Tribunal allowed the grounds of appeal on this issue.

In conclusion, the appeal was partially allowed, dismissing one ground as 'not pressed'. The Tribunal found in favor of the assessee on the treatment of received amounts and the disallowance of expenditure due to lack of evidence and logical basis for the decisions.