2015 (11) TMI 1275 - AT - Income Tax

Addition under section 68 - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - the amount received in the bank account of the assesseerespondent as proceeds of sale of shares held as stock-in-trade and investment, cannot be held or treated as unexplained income of the assessee, which would attract addition u/s. 68 of the Act. Especially when these revenue receipts which were received against sale of stock in trade had already been credited to the P & L account and reduced from the investments, then there cannot be further addition on protective basis u/s. 68 of the Act. On the basis of foregoing discussion, we are inclined to hold that the CIT(A) rightly viewed that there was no merit in assessing the impugned amount u/s. 68 of the Act on protective basis in the hands of the assessee when the same has been included in the surrendered amount in the hands of respective assessees and the issue of substantial addition has attained finality. Hence, we are unable to see any ambiguity or impropriety and any reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) and we uphold the same - Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality and validity of the assessment order.
2. Justification of the addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on a protective basis.
3. Evaluation of evidence related to the alleged entry operator, Mr. N.K. Jain.
4. Examination of the transactions and their reflection in the books of account.
5. Determination of whether the amounts received were unexplained income.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality and Validity of the Assessment Order:
The assessee challenged the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, alleging it was illegal, invalid, and bad in law. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] provided relief to the assessee, concluding that the additions made under Section 68 on a protective basis were not sustainable. This decision was based on the inclusion of the impugned amount in the surrendered income, thereby rendering the protective addition unnecessary.

2. Justification of the Addition Made Under Section 68 on a Protective Basis:
The AO made an addition of Rs. 7,01,07,808 under Section 68 on a protective basis, suspecting the transaction to be unexplained. The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in deleting this addition. However, the CIT(A) observed that the transactions were duly included in the surrendered income and were reflected in the books of account. Thus, the CIT(A) concluded that the protective addition was unwarranted.

3. Evaluation of Evidence Related to the Alleged Entry Operator, Mr. N.K. Jain:
The AO's assessment was based on seized documents indicating that Mr. N.K. Jain was an entry operator involved in providing accommodation entries. The Revenue contended that unaccounted cash was transferred to Mr. Jain, who then ploughed it back into the system through bogus entries. However, the CIT(A) noted that the transactions were bank-to-bank transfers or cheque deposits, not cash deposits, and were duly reflected in the books of account.

4. Examination of the Transactions and Their Reflection in the Books of Account:
The CIT(A) meticulously examined the transactions and found that they were reflected in the bank accounts and books of the assessee. The amounts received were towards the sale of shares held as stock-in-trade, and the financial statements supported this. The CIT(A) emphasized that the transactions were legitimate and properly documented, thus negating the AO's claim of unexplained income.

5. Determination of Whether the Amounts Received Were Unexplained Income:
The CIT(A) concluded that the amounts received were not unexplained income. The transactions were related to the sale of shares and inter-corporate loans, duly accounted for in the financial statements. The CIT(A) found no evidence to support the AO's allegation that the amounts were related to entry business. Consequently, the CIT(A) held that the amounts could not be treated as unexplained income under Section 68.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the amounts received by the assessee were legitimate and properly accounted for. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal, as the CIT(A) had rightly concluded that the protective addition under Section 68 was unwarranted. The Tribunal dismissed all five appeals of the Revenue, affirming the CIT(A)'s order and providing relief to the assessee.