2023 (8) TMI 218 - AT - Income Tax

Estimation of income - addition on protective bases - bogus share transactions and sale purchases - HELD THAT - Since the entire business of providing accommodation entries was run by Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain and the profit/income by way of commission on the turnover through the conduit companies was also enjoyed by him, the income earned on turnover through these concerns, including the assessee, was included as income in the individual case of Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain. However, the Assessing Officer also assessed this income in the hands of the assessee on a protective basis. As we find that the coordinate bench of the Tribunal vide its order 2023 (1) TMI 1276 - ITAT MUMBAI for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2014-15 upheld the addition made on substantive basis in the hands of Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain. Thus as the substantive addition has already been upheld by the coordinate bench in the case of Praveen Kumar Jain (supra), therefore the similar addition made on a protective basis in the hands of the assessee becomes unsustainable and therefore is directed to be deleted in all the assessment years under consideration before us - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The judgment involves challenges to an order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for multiple assessment years. The main issues revolve around the rejection of books of accounts, treatment of business activities as accommodation entries, estimation of commission income, and treatment of unaccounted income on a protective basis.

Rejection of Books of Accounts:
The appellant challenged the rejection of its books of accounts under section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant contended that the books and income were genuine and provided documentary evidence to support the transactions. However, the authorities found that the transactions were bogus entries aimed at providing accommodation to interested parties for a commission. The Assessing Officer computed net profit based on specific rates for different transactions, and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld this decision.

Treatment of Business Activities as Accommodation Entries:
The appellant argued against the treatment of all business activities as accommodation entries. It was revealed during a search and seizure action that the appellant, along with other companies, was involved in providing accommodation entries through unsecured loans, share capital, and bogus bills. The search uncovered operations controlled by an individual, leading to the rejection of the appellant's books of accounts. The Assessing Officer included the income earned through these activities in the appellant's assessment on a protective basis, a decision upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

Estimation of Commission Income:
The appellant contested the addition made by estimating commission income at specific rates for loans & advances and share application money. The Assessing Officer computed income at 0.20% per month for loans & advances and 2% for share application money. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld this addition, considering the transactions as part of a network of unlawful business aimed at tax evasion and money laundering.

Treatment of Unaccounted Income on Protective Basis:
The appellant disputed the treatment of alleged unaccounted commission income on a protective basis. The Assessing Officer assessed this income in the appellant's hands as a protective measure, mirroring the substantive addition made in another individual's case. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the dismissal of the appellant's appeals.

Judgment Summary:
The Appellate Tribunal, after considering submissions from both sides, found that the substantive addition made in another individual's case had been upheld by a coordinate bench. As a result, the Tribunal directed the deletion of similar additions made on a protective basis in the appellant's case for all the assessment years under consideration. The Tribunal emphasized that if the addition in the other individual's case was deleted in further proceedings, the addition in the appellant's case would be revived. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed all appeals by the appellant, leading to the deletion of the impugned additions in the assessment years in question.