Commissioner Of Income Tax vs. Sanjay Kumar Jain

PDF · subscribers
ITA/148/2009HC 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 were without merit and dismissed them. The reasoning was that the Assessing Officer (AO) had not recorded any specific reasons for disbelieving the genuineness of the accounts books and the entries therein. The AO disallowed the credits solely on the ground that the assessee had not produced the account holders or explained the credits. The Tribunal found that once the assessee produced the accounts books and claimed a benefit, it was incumbent upon the AO to conduct an inquiry and record a positive finding with regard to the genuineness or otherwise of the entries. Merely disbelieving the entries on the AO's 'ipse dixit' was not permissible. The concurrent findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the ITAT, which interfered with the AO's order based on the lack of proper inquiry and findings, were considered reasonable. The Tribunal found no substantial question of law warranting reconsideration under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed seven appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging concurrent findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the ITAT. The assessee, Sanjay Kumar Jain, for various assessment years, disclosed sundry credit entries in his account books, supported by particulars of creditors and relevant entries. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed these credits, deeming them unreliable without providing specific reasons. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the AO disallowed the entries without proper justification, merely because the creditors were not produced. The Commissioner (Appeals) and the ITAT held that the AO's approach was improper and the additions made were unsustainable.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in law by holding that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were unsustainable, despite the assessee not producing the creditors for verification? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's Contentions: The AO disallowed the credits because the assessee failed to produce the account holders or adequately explain the credits. The concurrent findings of the appellate authorities were erroneous.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

I.T.A. No :: 148 / 2009

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sanjay Kumar Jain I.T.A.Nos :: 144/09, 145/09, 146/09, 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

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →