Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bhopal vs. Sanjay Kumar Jain

PDF · subscribers
ITA/144/2009HC Madhya Pradesh22 July 2014Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA MENON3 pages
For Petitioner: Sanjeev Tuli
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue did not involve any substantial question of law warranting reconsideration under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The reasoning was that the Assessing Officer had failed to conduct a proper inquiry and record specific findings as to why he believed the sundry credit entries were not genuine or proper. The AO's disallowance was based on the mere ipse dixit that the account holders were not produced, without substantiating his doubts about the genuineness of the accounts or entries. The concurrent findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which interfered with the AO's order on these grounds, were considered reasonable and justified. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue (Commissioner of Income Tax) filed seven appeals challenging concurrent findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The assessee, Sanjay Kumar Jain, for various assessment years, disclosed sundry credit entries in his account books, providing particulars of creditors and supporting documents to the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO disallowed these credits, holding the entries unreliable without disclosing proper reasons, primarily because the creditors were not produced. The Commissioner (Appeals) found the AO's approach improper, stating the AO had not recorded any reasons to doubt the genuineness of the accounts or entries. The Tribunal concurred, finding the AO's additions unsustainable.

What were the issues?

1. Whether there is a substantial question of law arising from the concurrent findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which held that the Assessing Officer's disallowance of sundry credit entries was unsustainable for want of proper inquiry and recording of reasons, as required under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that once account books and creditor particulars were produced, the AO could not disbelieve the entries merely by ipse dixit or without conducting a proper inquiry and recording specific findings on the genuineness of the entries. The concurrent appellate authorities' interference with the AO's order was justified. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue contended that the AO was justified in disallowing the credits as the assessee failed to produce the account holders, implying the entries were not genuine. The judgment does not explicitly record the Revenue's specific arguments beyond this implication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

I.T.A. No :: 144 / 2009

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sanjay Kumar Jain I.T.A.Nos :: 149/09, 148/09, 145/09, 146/09, 143/09 & 147/2009 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/-

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →