2015 (11) TMI 281 - HC - Income Tax

Commission for issuing the DDs and POs - CIT deleted the additions made in the hands of the Assessee only on the ground that in Ravinder Yadav s hand they have already been taxed - revenue contented that all the sales shown in the books were in fact bogus sales - Held that - The CIT (A) in its order pointed out that as far as the Assessee is concerned it has in fact accounted all the receipts from the sales made to the different parties by producing all the relevant records. In fact the Revenue was unable to produce any material to counter the above facts and it was in those circumstances, the CIT (A) was persuaded to delete the addition. If in fact the genuineness of the sales have been proved by the Assessee and the amount received from such sales offered to tax then the addition made by the AO was in the facts and circumstances of the case not justified. The Court is not persuaded to hold that there is any perversity in the above factual findings of the CIT (A) and the ITAT warranting interference. - Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against ITAT order under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AYs 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09.
- Allegations of non-genuine business transactions and accommodation entries.
- Discrepancies in sales transactions and receipts from Mr. Ravinder Yadav.
- Deletion of additions made by CIT (A) and appeal by Revenue before ITAT.
- Contention regarding taxation of commission and alleged bogus sales.
- Assessment of genuineness of sales transactions and tax implications.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to three appeals by the Revenue challenging the ITAT order for the Assessment Years 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The case involves a search and seizure action under Section 132 of the Act at M/s Swastik Pipes group, where the Respondent Assessee, M/s Northern Strips Ltd., was also searched. Allegations arose regarding high volume cash transactions in Mr. Ravinder Yadav's bank account, leading to suspicions of non-genuine business activities and accommodation entries provided to the Assessee.

The Assessing Officer concluded that Mr. Ravinder Yadav facilitated non-genuine transactions for the Assessee, raising concerns about discrepancies in sales receipts. The Assessee defended its sales transactions, stating that all receipts were recorded in its books of account and offered for taxation, supported by relevant records. The CIT (A) deleted the additions based on factual findings that the sales were genuine and properly vouched for in the Assessee's records.

The ITAT upheld the CIT (A)'s decision, emphasizing the unassailed genuineness of the transactions and the consistent acceptance of drafts/pay orders against sales by the Assessee. The Revenue contended that the additions should not have been deleted, arguing that the sales were bogus and that the commission taxed in Mr. Ravinder Yadav's hands should also apply to the Assessee.

The CIT (A) justified the deletion of additions by highlighting the Assessee's proper accounting of sales receipts and the lack of evidence from the Revenue to refute the genuineness of the transactions. The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the factual findings of the CIT (A) and the ITAT, concluding that no substantial question of law warranted interference. The judgment underscores the importance of substantiating sales transactions and the proper taxation of income based on genuine business activities.