Commissioner Of Income Tax vs. Sanjay Kumar Jain
What did the High Court hold?
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue lacked merit and were dismissed. The reasoning was that the Assessing Officer (AO) had failed to conduct a proper inquiry into the genuineness of the sundry credit entries. The AO disallowed the credits merely on the ground that the account holders were not produced or that the credits were not explained, without providing any specific reasons or positive findings as to why the accounts books and the entries therein were considered unreliable or bogus. The concurrent findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which had interfered with the AO's order based on this lack of proper investigation and justification, were deemed reasonable. The Tribunal found no substantial question of law involved warranting reconsideration under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the additions made by the AO were held unsustainable.
What were the facts?
The Revenue filed seven appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging the concurrent findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the ITAT for various assessment years. The assessee, Sanjay Kumar Jain, had disclosed sundry credit entries in his account books, supported by particulars of creditors and the books themselves, which were produced before the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO disallowed these credits, holding them to be unreliable without providing specific reasons. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the AO's refusal to accept the entries was unsubstantiated, particularly as it was based solely on the non-production of the creditors. The appellate authorities concluded that the AO had not properly investigated the genuineness of the accounts.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Tribunal had to decide if the Assessing Officer's disallowance of sundry credit entries was justified, given that the assessee had produced account books and creditor particulars, and the AO had not recorded specific reasons for disbelieving them, turning on Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the AO erred by disallowing credit entries without proper inquiry or recording specific reasons for doubting their genuineness. The Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal had already found the AO's approach to be improper, especially since the AO's sole basis for disbelief was the non-production of the creditors. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue contended that the AO's disallowance was valid. The judgment does not explicitly record the Revenue's specific arguments beyond filing the appeals against the concurrent findings of the lower appellate authorities.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
I.T.A. No :: 143 / 2009
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sanjay Kumar Jain I.T.A.Nos :: 144/09, 145/09, 146/09, 147/09, 148/09 & 149/2009 22.07.2014. Shri Sanjay Lal for the appellant. As common questions of law and facts are involved in all these seven appeals, filed by the revenue, calling in question tenability of concurrent findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, we propose to deal with all the appeals and dispose them all by common order. For various assessment years, respondent/assessee filed his return of income under the Income Tax Act, 1961. While submitting his return of income, he disclosed particulars of various creditors, in whose favour certain amounts were paid and, therefore, sundry credit entries were made in the account books. Particulars of various creditors for each year was submitted by the assessee and the accounts book showing the entry made in support were also produced by the assessee before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer held that these entries are not reliable entries and disallowed the credits. On appeal being filed by the assessee before the Commissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner found that the Assessing Officer has refused to accept the entries indicated in the Accounts Book without disclosing any proper reason and held that the book of Accounts are not genuine or that they are bogus entries without recording any reason. On the contrary, it was found that merely because the person concerned in whose favour the entry is made is not produced before him, the Assessing Officer has disbelieved the entries made. The Commissioner
2 (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal have found that this was not a proper approach by the Assessing Officer, without recording any finding with regard to the genuineness or otherwise of the Accounts Book, it is held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and we have also gone through the detailed findings in this regard, recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. It is a fact that with regard to all these sundry credit entries, Accounts Book and other documents were produced and the Assessing Officer has not even whispered as to why he feels that the Accounts Book and the entries made therein are not genuine or bogus. He has disallowed the entries on the ground that the assessee has not produced the account holder or the credits have not been explained. Once the assessee has produced the Accounts Book and as claimed certain benefit, it is for the Assessing Officer to conduct an inquiry into the matter in a manner as may be permissible and record a finding with regard to the genuineness or otherwise of the entries made. Merely on his ipse dixit the Assessing Officer cannot disbelieve the Accounts Book and make certain additions. The Assessing Officer has to conduct a proper inquiry and record a positive finding as to why and on what grounds he feels that the entries are not genuine or proper? This having not been done, the reasonable justification given by the concurrent appellate authorities namely – The Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, for interfering
3 with the order of the Assessing Officer seems to be reasonable and we find no substantial question of law involved in the matter warranting reconsideration in a proceeding under section 260-A of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, finding no merit, these appeals are dismissed.
(RAJENDRA MENON) (ALOK VERMA)
J U D G E J U D G E
Aks/-
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Vk Construction vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - IiMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Sri Bhuvaneshwari And Co vs. The Deputy Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026
- Giri Paints vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026
- Rahul Radheshyam Chauhan vs. Union Of INDIA Thru The Sec. Ministry Of Law And Justice And OrsBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- S.Murugesan vs. The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026