Commissioner Of Income Tax vs. Sanjay Kumar Jain
What did the High Court hold?
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's disallowance of sundry credit entries was unsustainable. The reasoning was that the assessee had produced account books and supporting documents. The Assessing Officer failed to conduct a proper inquiry or record any specific findings or reasons to doubt the genuineness of the entries. Merely disbelieving the entries because the creditors were not produced, without any positive finding of their lack of genuineness, was an improper 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 found to be reasonable. The Tribunal concluded that there was no substantial question of law involved, warranting reconsideration under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, the appeals were dismissed.
What were the facts?
The Revenue filed seven appeals challenging concurrent findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for various assessment years. The assessee, Sanjay Kumar Jain, had disclosed sundry credit entries in his account books, providing particulars of creditors and supporting documents to 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 properly investigated the genuineness of the accounts or recorded any reasons for disbelief, merely disallowing the credits because 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 holding that the Assessing Officer's disallowance of sundry credit entries was unsustainable, despite the assessee not producing the creditors before the Assessing Officer? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that they had produced account books and other documents, and the Assessing Officer failed to conduct a proper inquiry or record specific reasons for disbelieving the entries. The concurrent findings of the lower appellate authorities, who found the Assessing Officer's approach improper, were reasonable. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue contended that the Assessing Officer was justified in disallowing the credits because the assessee had not produced the account holders or adequately explained the credits. The judgment does not explicitly record the Revenue's reliance on any specific authorities, circulars, or precedents.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
I.T.A. No :: 147 / 2009
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sanjay Kumar Jain I.T.A.Nos :: 144/09, 148/09, 145/09, 146/09, 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 260-A
- Rijwan vs Income Tax OfficerITA/3/202023 Sept 2026
- Manoj Gupta vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)…ITA/243/202618 Sept 2026
- Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs Income Tax Officer, JammuITA/20/20142 Apr 2026
- Late Shri Gopaliyengar Madabushi Muralidhar vs The Income Tax OfficerITA/16/202526 Feb 2026
- Shri K. Samba Siva Rao ( HUF), Hyd vs I.T.O., HydITTA/181/20109 Feb 2026
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Suryansh Chawda vs. The State Of Madhya PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Yash Shilawat vs. State Bank Of INDIAMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Pushpa Devi Verma vs. State Bank Of INDIA Through Its Chief ManagerMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Ayan Khan vs. Bandhan BankMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026