Commissioner Of Income Tax vs. Sanjay Kumar Jain
What did the High Court hold?
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were without merit and dismissed them. The Tribunal reasoned that the Assessing Officer (AO) had not recorded any specific findings or reasons to doubt the genuineness of the accounts book or the sundry credit entries. The AO's disallowance was based solely on the ground that the assessee had not produced the creditors, which the Tribunal found to be an insufficient basis for disbelieving the entries. The Tribunal emphasized that once the assessee produced the accounts book and claimed a benefit, it was incumbent upon the AO to conduct a proper inquiry and record a positive finding with specific grounds for deeming the entries as not genuine or proper. Since the AO failed to do so, the concurrent findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which interfered with the AO's order, 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 for various assessment years. The assessee, Sanjay Kumar Jain, had disclosed sundry credit entries in his books of account and provided particulars of creditors. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed these credits, holding them to be unreliable without providing specific reasons. The Commissioner (Appeals) and the ITAT found that the AO's approach was improper, as he disallowed the entries merely because the creditors were not produced, without recording any finding on the genuineness of the accounts or the entries. The appellate authorities concluded that the additions made by the AO were unsustainable.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate 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 the accounts book and particulars of creditors. The AO failed to record any specific reasons for disbelieving the genuineness of the entries or the accounts. The appellate authorities correctly intervened as the AO's disallowance was based on mere ipse dixit without proper inquiry. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue contended that the AO was justified in disallowing the credit entries because the assessee did not produce the concerned creditors to substantiate the genuineness of the transactions. The concurrent findings of the appellate authorities were erroneous.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
I.T.A. No :: 149 / 2009
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sanjay Kumar Jain I.T.A.Nos :: 144/09, 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/-
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 →- Pradeep Kumar Behera vs. Superintendent CGST And Central Excise., CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Manas Behera vs. Commissioner, CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Pramod Kumar Nayak vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, KendraparaOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Nirmal Kumar Sharma S/O Ram Swroop Sharma vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 16 Oct 2026
- Sh Umang Uniyal vs. Commissioner Department Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 16 Oct 2026