ANITA JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “SMC” BENCH, JAIPUR BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 102/JPR/2026 (Assessment Year:2020-21)

Anita Jain Vs. ITO 6, Transport Nagar, Jaipur Ward 5(1) Jaipur �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No:ABRPJ 5860 D Appellant .. Respondent

Appellant by : Sh. Shravan Kumar Gupta, Adv. Respondent by : Ms. Aarti Rawat, JCIT

Date of Hearing 14.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement 31.08.2026 O R D E R The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 26.11.2025u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961,(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

P a g e | 2 ITA No.102/JPR/2026 Anita Jain

P a g e | 3 ITA No.102/JPR/2026 Anita Jain cash received by the assessee from one Sh. Hari Ram Godara and commission received from Sh. Hari Ram Godara of Rs.45,655/-. The reopening of the assessee’s case was resorted to on the basis of information received by the AO from the Assistant Director of Income Tax Investigation Alwar to the effect that a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act carried out at the residential premises of NG Ghadiya Group and its associates on 03.11.2023 which included the premises of M/s HRG, Hari Ram Godara, Karamjeet Godara which led to data being impounded including incriminating documents, paper and soft data ,revealing cash transactions entered into with the assessee by Sh. Hari Ram Godara of Rs.14,76,045/- and 3% commission paid thereon of Rs.45,655/-. 4. The assessment order reveals that in the soft data seized during the search, cash tally file of Sh. Hari Ram Godara for the impugned assessment year was found. The impounded data from Sh. Hari Ram Godara contained ledger of the assessee i.e. M/s Ashoka Tyres in the books of Sh. Hari Ram Godara which revealed the assessee to have made sale of tyres of Rs. 15,21,700/- to Hari Ram Godara ,payment forwhich was received by banking cheque however, the ledger further reflected that a sum of Rs.14,76,045/- was returned in cash by the assessee and Rs. 45,655/- retained by the assessee as commission. 5. The AO interpreted notes the information to reveal that the assessee had provided accommodation entry of purchase of tyres to Sh. Hari Ram Godara, that actually no tyres had been sold by the assessee to Sh. Hari Ram Godara but had only raised bogus bills, had received

P a g e | 4 ITA No.102/JPR/2026 Anita Jain payment by cheques against the same which was subsequently returned to Sh. Hari Ram Godara and the assessee retained only the commission component , which was given for providing the services of accommodation entry. The allegation of the Department was that the assessee thus had facilitated providing bogus bills of purchase to Sh. Hari Ram Godara. The AO went on to make addition of the entire cash so found to have been paid by the assessee to Sh. Hari Ram Godara of Rs.14,76,045/- and also addition on account of the commission income earned by the assessee of Rs. 45,655/-. 6. I have heard both the parties and have gone through the orders of the Authorities below. It is an admitted fact that the assessee had shown sales of Rs.15,21,700/- in her Books of accounts, to the firm of Sh. Hari Ram Godara . The assessee has admittedly received cheques from Sh. Hari Ram Godara against the said sales. The allegation of the Department is that, the bills of sales were bogus, the cheques were received and the amount received by way of cheque were returned in cash to Sh. Hari Ram Godara and certain amount retained as commission earned by the assessee. Thus out of the total amount of sale made of Rs.15,21,700/-, an amount of Rs.14,76,045/- was allegedly returned in cash by the assessee and the balance of Rs. 45,655/- retained as commission earned. The material found during search action on Sh. Hari Ram Godara , being a ledger account of the assessee recording the above transactions in soft copy ,was the basis for the aforestated findings of the Revenue authorities.

P a g e | 5 ITA No.102/JPR/2026 Anita Jain 7. This sales of Rs.15,21,700/- admittedly has been recorded in the books of the assessee and considered for the purpose of determining the profits of the assessee for taxation purposes. What the AO/Revenue has done is that the entire amount of Rs.15,21,700/- has been again treated as the income of the assessee from other sources ,holding the sale made by the assessee to be bogus and cash allegedly returned by the assessee of Rs.14,76,045/- to be from unexplained sources and commission earned of Rs.45,655/- . 8. If the sale is treated as bogus, the impugned amount reflected in profit and loss accounts needed to be ignored for arriving at the profits of the assessee, since as per Revenue no actual sales had been made by the assessee to the firm of Sh. Godara. In the present case, the AO has retained the sales reflected by the assessee in its profits and loss account and has also added the same amount again as the income of the assessee from other sources, resulting in double taxation of the same income. 9. Moreover the assessee produced complete Books of accounts, duly audited by a chartered accountant u/s 44AB of the Act, before the AO. The bills and vouchers evidencing the aforestated sales were also produced. The assessee stated to maintain complete stock records of the goods traded in, being tyres and tubes, and produced stock ledger before the AO. No infirmity has been pointed out in the any of the documents evidencing the sale of goods to Sh. Hari Ram Godara, as stated above.

P a g e | 6 ITA No.102/JPR/2026 Anita Jain 10. In the light of the above, I hold, no case has been made out by the Revenue for making addition of the entire amount of cash allegedly paid by the assessee to Sh. Hari Ram Godara of Rs.14,76,045/- , which as noted above tantamounts to double addition in the hands of the assessee. 11. As for the component of commission income allegedly earned by the assessee of Rs.45,655/-, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee fairly submitted to the addition being sustained , 12. In effect the grounds raised by the assessee stand partly allowed. 13. The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 31.08.2026.

Sd/- (Annapurna Gupta) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated 31.08.2026 Mittali, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT By Order, Asst. Registrar ITAT, Jaipur