Commissioner Of Income Tax vs. Sanjay Kumar Jain
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 Tribunal found that the assessee had produced account books and other documents supporting the sundry credit entries. The Assessing Officer had not provided any specific reasons or conducted an inquiry to demonstrate why he believed the entries were not genuine or were bogus. Merely disbelieving the entries because the account holders were not produced, without a proper inquiry and a positive finding on the genuineness of the entries, was not a sustainable approach. The concurrent findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which interfered with the Assessing Officer's order on these grounds, were considered reasonable. Therefore, 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, had disclosed sundry credit entries in his account books, supported by particulars of creditors and production of account books before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer disallowed these credits, deeming the entries unreliable without providing specific reasons. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the Assessing Officer had not disclosed proper reasons for disbelieving the entries, particularly for disallowing them solely on the ground that the creditors were not produced. The Tribunal upheld this view, finding the Assessing Officer's approach improper.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Tribunal erred in law by upholding the Commissioner (Appeals)'s finding that the Assessing Officer's disallowance of sundry credit entries was unsustainable, despite the assessee not producing the creditors before the Assessing Officer (turning on Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961)? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that he had produced account books and particulars of creditors. The Assessing Officer failed to record any specific reasons for disbelieving the genuineness of the entries, making arbitrary additions. The concurrent findings of the appellate authorities, who found the Assessing Officer's approach improper, should be upheld. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue contended that the Assessing Officer was justified in disallowing the credits as the assessee failed to produce the account holders, implying the entries were not genuine. The Tribunal and Commissioner (Appeals) erred in interfering with the Assessing Officer's findings.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
I.T.A. No :: 146 / 2009
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sanjay Kumar Jain I.T.A.Nos :: 144/09, 148/09, 145/09, 147/09, 143/09 & 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
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mohit Jain vs. Union Bank Of INDIAMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Gopal Yadav vs. Union BankMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Infinix Inftoech vs. Utkarsh Small Fianance BankMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Chandra Shekhar Dayar vs. Hdfc BankMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026