Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee received funds totaling Rs. 84,00,669/- during the FY 2012-13, which the Assessing Officer treated as unexplained money under Section 69A. The assessee claimed these were from accommodation entries and finance obtained through post-dated cheques.
Held
The Tribunal noted that while some additions were deleted, the bulk of the unexplained money credit entries were confirmed. However, regarding finance obtained from certain parties, the Tribunal found sufficient evidence of identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness, thus holding no addition was called for in that regard.
Key Issues
Whether the credit entries in the assessee's bank account constitute unexplained money under Section 69A, and whether transactions with specific parties were genuine business finances or accommodation entries.
Sections Cited
69A, 147, 148, 143(1), 151, 132, 132(4), 271(1)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: DR.BRR KUMAR & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL
Appellant by : Shri Sunil Talati, A.R. Respondent by: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 13.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement 17.02.2025 O R D E R PER: DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT: These appeals have been filed by the Assessee against the separate orders passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ahmedabad, for the Assessment Years 2013-14 to 2015-16. Since the issue involved in all the three appeal are common, we extract the grounds of appeal raised in AY 2013-14 for the purpose of adjudication.
2. The Assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:-
1. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 75,38,169/- under Section 69A of the Act and has wrongly invoked the provisions of Section 69A in the absence of clear evidence of unexplained money. It is submitted that the addition confirmed of to 1781/Ahd/2024 Asst.Years –(2013-14 to 2015-16) - 2– Rs. 75,38, 169/- is totally incorrect on facts as well as on law and the same is prayed to be deleted.
2. The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to properly appreciate the nature of the banking transactions and cheques deposited by the appellant. The appellant has already explained that the cheques were part of regular financing operations and were not related to any unexplained money or accommodation entries. Despite this clarification, the addition was upheld without proper examination of the facts. The addition made under Section 69A is baseless and must be quashed. 3. The Order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and contrary to the provisions of law and facts. It is submitted that the same be held so now. 4. Your appellant craves leave to add, alter, and/or amend all or any of the grounds before the final hearing of the appeal.
3. For the sake of ready reference, the observation of the Assessing Officer reads as under:
The case of the assessee has been identified as potential case flagged by the Directorate of Income tax (Systems) after risk profiling based on credible information. The information has been disseminated through the Insight Portal wherein enquiry reports and findings have been uploaded. In this case, information has been received that during the year F.Y. 2012-13 relevant to A.Y. 2013-14, the assessee has entered into transactions of Rs.84,00,669/-with Sanjay G Agrawal (Also Known as Sanjay Tibrewal). As an outcome of enquiry / perusal and analysis of details available on records, it is noticed that the genuineness of the said transactions is not conclusively proved. Since, the credible information is exhaustive and is specific and after going through this it is found that no inquires is necessary before recording satisfaction for issuance of notice. On verification of return of income for the year under consideration it is notice that the assessee has not admitted the above income in her return of Income. After considering the materials available on records, the jurisdictional assessing officer, ITO, Ward-1(2)(3), Ahemdabad satisfied that the said amount of Rs.84,00,669/- is required to be brought under tax net.
It is pertinent to mention here that in this case the assessee has filed return of income for the year under consideration but no assessment as stipulated u/s 2(40) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was made and the return of income was only processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. In view of the above, provisions of clause (b) of explanation 2 to section 147 are applicable to facts of this case and the assessment year under consideration is deemed to be a case where income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. In this case more than four years have been elapsed from the end of assessment year under consideration. Accordingly, a notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act has been issued to the assessee on 30.03.2021, after recording reasons for satisfaction and obtaining to 1781/Ahd/2024 Asst.Years –(2013-14 to 2015-16) - 3– necessary approval from the Pr.CIT-1, Ahemdabad as per the provisions of section 151 of the Act.
The assessee has filed her return of income on 03.01.2022 declaring total income of Rs.3.63,665/- in response to the notice u/s.148 of the act. Further, notice u/s.142(1), dated 16.11.2021, 24.12.2021, 03.01.2022 was issued calling for information. Reasons of re-opening was provided to the assessee vide this office letter dated 1.02.2022. Consequent to the submission of the reasons, the assessee filed her objections vide her reply dated 18.02.2022 and the same were disposed by this office letter dated 21.03.2022. Subsequently the assessee on 23.03.2022 submitted that idonot know any of these parties and did not carried any transactions with Sanjay Tiberewal and his associates. In her submission the assessee submitted bank account statement of J& K Bank." However the assessee has not submitted all the bank account statements of her and her business concern some of which mentioned in the ROI as well as computation of income, where above transactions reflected. In addition to the above, the assessee submitted that she do not know and not made any transaction with Sanjay Tiberewal and his associates however in the bank account furnished of J&K Bank it is noticed that funds were credited in the bank account of the assessee from the M/s. Radhe corporation & Siddivinayak Textiles, hence submission of the assessee not tenable. Subsequently show cause notice was issued to the assessee on 26.03.2022 for proposed addition against which the assessee has not furnished reply within the time prescribed.
On perusal of the submissions made by the assessee, the assessment is completed as under: A Search U/s. 132 of the income tax act was conducted on 12.04.2019 in the case of Sanjay Govindaram Agarwal (also known as Sanjay Tibrewal) who is caring his business of trading in bed sheets under the proprietary concern S. G. Corporation and Shari Laxmi Prints having the brand name Flemingo. Further he is also into the business of providing accommodation entries to various persons such as cheque in lieu of cash and vice versa. During the search action various documents relating to financial transactions, most of which were in cash, were also found and seized. Key employees of the group handling cash have accepted cash transactions in their solemn affirmation. The evidences were interrelated, speaking and corroborative. The evidences found and seized clearly establish that assessee is involved in the business of providing accommodation entries thereby layering unaccounted funds of various persons through various bank accounts so that such money was entered the books of accounts without payment of any taxes. During the Search/post search action it is gathered that employee of the Sanjay Goivndrarn Agrawal namely Alpaben Anik Kumar Shan (CZRPS7502M), Jignaben Samirbhai Shah (AUPPS3338A), Harishbhai Muljibhai Purohit (BVQPP0659E), Hasmukh Jamesh kumar Purohit (BCWPP4480J), Lucky Bajoria (BPPPB6421R), Niranjan Nareshbhai Makwana (DCDPM0617K), Sandip Narshibhai Parmar (ATFPP1170Q), Vivekkumar Karnalkumar Agrawal (AMLPA2976Q) opened bank to 1781/Ahd/2024 Asst.Years –(2013-14 to 2015-16) - 4– accounts and their bank account used by the Sanjay Govindaram Agarwal (Sanjay Tibrewal) to provide accommodation entries. Further Sri Sanjay Tibrewal has maintained the list of concerns in the name of various persons such as Harish M Purohit, Lucky Bajoria, details of various bank accounts held in their name in different bank accounts and the period of holding of such banks. These sheets are found in his residential premises, office premises mobile phone of Sanjay Tibrewal which prove that Sanjay Tibrewal is the main operator of these concerns. Apart from this, various other incriminating evidences has been found which establish the fact that Sanjay Tibrewal is operating various bank accounts which are in reality held in the name of various other persons and used for providing accommodation entry. From the above, it can be seen that either the address of business or the mobile number or the email-id or the name of the introducer was either that of Sanjay Tibrewal or his employees who were assisting him in the business of providing accommodation entries. If these persons and bank accounts operation had no nexus then it would be impossible to find one common link in all the bank opening forms, KYC. In this case all the bank accounts in the name of various persons such as Hasmukh Purohit, Harish Purohit, Vivek Agrawal, Sandeep Parmar, Lucky Bajoria, Alpa Shah and Jigna Shah have one common link (i.e.) ST. As discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the details of the bank accounts of these persons, signed blank cheques, name of the proprietary concerns, their ITRs, their notices from Income Tax Department, copies of submission to be filed with the Income Tax department- everything is also found in the possession of Sanjay Tibrewal. If Sanjay Tibrewal had no nexus in the operation of these concerns and their bank accounts, then none of the above mentioned evidences were to corroborate with the banking enquiries conducted and KYC forms maintained with the bank as discussed above. In this regard it is pertinent to mention that both Sanjay Tibrewal and his employee Shri Pradeep Agrawal have in their statements accepted that ST is into the business of providing accommodation entries. The same has also been stated by Harish M.Purohit in his statement. Also, the names of the various persons whose mobile numbers are registered with the banks were either worked with Sanjay Tiberewal or continue to work with Sanjay Tiberewal. Also, some of the persons in whose names the concerns are being operated were/are the employees of Sanjay Tiberewal. From the credible information it is noticed that during the F.Y. 2012-13 relevant to A.Y. 2013-14 business concerns of Harish M. Purohit, i.e. Radhe Corporation, M/s. Shankar Corporation & Krishna Enterprises made transactions with the business concerns of KANODIA CREATIONS, KANODIA and VINAYAK PROPACK which details are as under: Details of transactions of Harish M. Purohit with KANODIA CREATIONS (ABGPK5179D) Sl.No Proprietorship Address of Bank Account Amount concern/business business of details transactions transferred/accommodation concern concern made by Shri entries provided during the Sankay Tiberewal F.Y 2012-13 1. Radhe 55, Hari 0447010100000438 26,58,169/- to 1781/Ahd/2024 Asst.Years –(2013-14 to 2015-16) - 5– Corporation Darshan Society, Narol, Ahmedabad, New Cloth Market, Ahmedabad 2. Krishna -do- 447010100000439 9,91,000/- Enterprises 3. M/s. Sankar 12 Shakti 0447010100000472 38,89,000/- Corporation Society, Isanpur, Ahmedabad Total 75,38,169/- Details of transactions of Harish M. Purohit with KANODIA VINAYAK PROPACK (ABGPK5179D) Sl.No Proprietorshi Address of Bank Account Amount p business of details transferred/accommodation concern/busin concern transactions entries provided during the ess concern made by Shri F.Y2012-13 Sanjay Tiberewal 1 Radhe 55, Hari Darshan 044701010000 8,62,500/- Corporation Society, Narol 0 Ahmedabad & 213, New Cloth market, Ahmedabad Total 8,62,500/- With regard to address of the business concern of Sri Harish M. Purohit enquiries were conducted during the course of search and post search proceedings and found as under (Details of address wise enquiries conducted and result thereof.) Address-1: No such proprietary concern is running at the given address for the last 25 years. On further enquiring from owner of this property, it is was found that the premise was not let out to any one andno business concern is operating from this premise. No person seems to know about the above- mentioned proprietary concern. Also there is no name plate or board or any kind of indicative sign plate of the concern at the above mentioned address. Address 283: No such proprietary concern is running at the given address for the last 5-6 years. On further enquiring in the neighbourhood, no person seems to know about the above mentioned proprietary concern. Also there is no name plate or board or any kind of indicative sign plate of the concern at the above mentioned address.
ITA Nos.1779 to 1781/Ahd/2024 Asst.Years –(2013-14 to 2015-16) - 6– During the search proceedings, statement of Sanjay Tiberewal was recorded under section 132(4) of the I.TAct. From the statements of Sanjay Tiberewal it is clear that: Sanjay Tiberewal has stated that Shri Pradeep Agrawal is his employee and has been working with him for several years in his business of cheque discounting and cash business. Sanjay Tiberewal has stated that he was involved in the business of transfer of cash. He had also stated that the commission received by him for transfer of money was in cash and was unaccounted in the books of accounts. He has also stated that he was involved in the business of providing accommodation entries (i.e.) giving cheque entry in lieu of cash and vice versa for which also commission is charged by Sanjay Tiberewal in cash. The commission received in cash for the conduct of business of accommodation entries was also unaccounted by Sanjay Tiberewal. He has stated that for the purpose of providing accommodation entries, bank accounts of third party were used by Sanjay Tiberewal. In addition to the above, during the course of post search proceedings statements of Harish M. Purohit were also recorded on 19.10.2016 and he has explained the entire modus operandi of Sanjay Tiberewal. In his statement, Harish M Purohit admitted that; He was a man of no means. He used to work with Sanjay Tibrewal. Sanjay Tibrewal had assigned him work of ferrying cash. Sanjay Tibrewal is an accommodation entry provider. He was in the business of providing RTGS and cheque in lieu of cash. All the current accounts opened in name of Harish M Purohit are operated by Sanjay Tibrewal for providing accommodation entries in lieu of cash. All the business concerns in name of Harish M Purohit are paper concerns and are fraud concerns. These concerns don't carryout any kind of sale- purchase of goods. No services of any kind are provided by these concerns. No loans & advances are advanced or received by these concerns. No share investment business is carried out by these concerns. All the current accounts which are in name of Harish M Purohit are operated by Sanjay Tibrewal for providing accommodation entry only. Sanjay Tibrewal carries out his business at 209 & 233, Top Floor, New Cloth Market, Sarangpur. Harish M Purohit stated that for operating his bank accounts, his forged signatures were done. Harish M Purohit deposed that Lucky Bajoriya, Nandu Ji. Kamlesh Patel, Suman Tulsyan, Sanjay Tibrewal and Dayabhai to 1781/Ahd/2024 Asst.Years –(2013-14 to 2015-16) - 7– Solanki can do his forged signature. He stated that these persons used to carry out finance related activities at 233, Top Floor, New Cloth Market. Suman Tulsyan is an important ally of Sanjay Tibrewal. He used to do all the bank related work for Sanjay Tibrewal. Kamlesh Patel looks after cash related work of Sanjay Tibrewal. Lucky Bajoria does cheque related work. In view of the above discussions it is clear that Sanjay Tiberewal was into the business of providing accommodation entries by using the bank accounts held in the name of his employees or other persons with very little means. Through the business operations of Sri Harish M Purohit, he made accommodation entries amounting to Rs. 84,00,669/- with the assessee during the F.Y. 2012-13 relevant to A.Y. 2013-14 which details were mentioned as above, however the assessee has not admitted the above transactions in his return of income for the year under consideration. As per the provisions of section 69A of Income tax Act, Where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article and such money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article is not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of acquisition of the money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article, or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the money and the value of the bullion, jewellery or other valuable article may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year. In addition to the above, from the bank account of the assessee it is very clear that the assessee has received funds i.e. Rs. 84,00,669/- from the accommodation entry providers M/s. Radhe Corporation, Krishna Enterprise, M/s. Sankar Corporation during the year under consideration very frequently though the assessee is denied that she does not know Sanjay Tiberewal and its associates and not made any transactions, which shows assessee intentionally /deliberately not want to show / admit above transactions. Further the funds credited neither returned by the assessee nor he lodged any police complaint for the same. If funds is credited once it may be by mistake however frequently funds were credited in the bank account of the assessee and the same was utilized by the assessee. In view of above facts and circumstance of the case, the funds amounting to Rs. 84,00,669/- credited in the bank accounts of the assessee or business concerns of the assesse during the F.Y. 2012-13 relevant to A.Y. 2013-14 is treated as unexplained money u/s 69A of the I.T. Act., 1961 and added to the income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c)of the Income tax Act are being initiated separately for concealment of income and also furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. (Addition U/s. 69A: Rs. 84,00,669/-)
4. Aggrieved the assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT (A).
5. The findings of the Ld. CIT(A) reads as under: to 1781/Ahd/2024 Asst.Years –(2013-14 to 2015-16) - 8– From the credible information, it is noticed by the AO that during the F.Y. 2012-13 relevant to the A.Y. 2013-14, business concerns of Harish M. Purohit, i.e. Radhe Corporation, M/s. Shankar Corporation and Krishna Enterprises made transactions with the business concerns of Kanodia Creations, Kanodia and Vinayak Propack. The AO further observed that from the J & K Bank account furnished by the appellant, it was observed that funds were credited from M/s. Radhe Corporation and Siddivinayak Textiles. The appellant denied being known the person Sanjay Tiberewal and his associates. However, she has not explained the credit entries in her J & K bank account from M/s. Radhe Corporation and Siddivinayak Textiles. 5.5.1 It is submitted that the appellant is engaged in the business of trading of semi stitched cloth. During the year, the bank statement showing transactions of cheques received are not at all any accounting entry from Sanjay Tibrewal but the assessee was issued post dated cheques issued which were crossed bearer cheques and against such cheques, the assessee was receiving cheques to be deposited on the same day as finance. The finance against post dated cheques are normally available in market with a difference of 7-10 days and to continue the business, the assessee had no option but to get post dated cheques and again issue further post dated cheque to continue further credit facilities. 5.5.2 It can be seen from the above that the modus operandi of providing accommodation entries and the finance against post dated cheques are similar to one another. The appellant had not denied that the finance was obtained from Radhe Corporation, Shankar Corporation and Krishna enterprises. During the search/post search action it is gathered that employee of the Sanjay Govindram Agarwal opened bank accounts and their bank accounts used by the Sanjay Govindram Agarwal to provide accommodation entries. From the credible information, it is found that during the F.Y. 2012-13 relevant to the A.Y. 2013-14 business concerns of Harish M Purohit i.e. Radhe Corporation, M/s. Shankar Corporation and Krishna Enterprises made transactions with the business concerns of Kanodha Creations, Kanodia and Vinayak Propack. During the course of post search proceedings statements of Harish M. Purohit were also recorded on 19.10.2016 and he has explained the entire modus operandi of Sanjay Tiberewal. 5.5.3 In the appellate proceedings, burden of proof lies on the appellant to prove that facts and findings of the AO are incorrect. If the appellant fails to disprove or rebut with cogent evidence such facts and findings, no interference is required against the assessment order. The appellant failed to understand that the assessment order was passed by the AO after verification & consideration of the information furnished during assessment proceedings and that this appeal is filed against such order. Further, the appellant failed to understand the fact that mere filing of appeal is not sufficient to dispose the case in appeal. In view of the above discussion to 1781/Ahd/2024 Asst.Years –(2013-14 to 2015-16) - 9– and it is held that the AO correctly held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus vested on her by not filing necessary explanation for the credit entries in the bank account from M/s. Radhe Corporation and Textile with sufficient documentary evidence. M/s. Siddhivinayak 5.5.4 With regard to the addition of Rs. 8,62,500/- on account of Kanodia Vinayak Propack, it was held by the appellant that the same should not be added in her case as the firm is a different entity. In the remand report, the AO at page 3 held that the assesee has submitted a copy of acknowledgement of return of income filed by Sh Manishkumar Kanodia, Prop: Kanodia Vinayak Propack. Therefore, the claim of the assesse with respect to addition of Rs. 8,62,500/- appears acceptable. Relied on the remand report of the Assessing officer, the AO is directed to delete the addition of Rs. 8,62,500/-. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 75,38,169/- (Rs. 84,00,6698,62,500) being the credit entries in the bank is confirmed u/s 69A of the Act as the synopsis of same remain unexplained and unsubstantiated.
Aggrieved the assessee file appeal before the Tribunal.
Before us Ld. AR argued that the assessee is in the business of trading of unstitched ladies dress material in the name of Kanodia Creation for this the assessee was in a need of funds and finances for which the assessee was obtaining finances. The copies of the cheque issued for discounting and receiving the cheques have been enclosed in the paper book the assessee has not received any entry from or Sanjay Agrawal or Sanjay Tiberewal. On the other hand, Ld. DR supported the orders of the revenue authorities. The relevant part has already been mentioned above.
We have heard the argument and perused the material available on record. The assessee has submitted due evidences to explain that the transaction in the bank statement reflect post dated cheque issued and cross barer cheque against the cheques received. The cheques received were deposited on the same day. On the due date the post dated cheques were being credited. It is a system of obtaining loans by issuing post dated to 1781/Ahd/2024 Asst.Years –(2013-14 to 2015-16) - 10– cheques which are encashed within 90 to 110 days for availing credit. Further we find the total credits in the bank account were to the tune of Rs.1.83 crores. The assessee has also submitted copies of confirmation of account from M/s. Krishna Enterprises, M/s. Shankar Corporation and M/s. Radhe Corporation and copies of several cheques issued in favour of (i) M/s. Krishna Enterprises, (ii) Bharatbhai Zalawadiya, (iii) Ghanshyam, Zalawadiya, (iv) Chauhan Imran I., (v) Raj Kamal Prints, (vi) K.S Corporation, (vi) Samkit Corporation, (viii) Mahar Synthetic Mill, (ix) Sumit Creation, (x) Mahadev Creation etc. The assessee has thus claimed that she has issued post dated cheques to these persons/entities to obtain finance. The copies of the cheques have been duly perused.
With regard to finance obtained from Radhe Corporation, Shankar Corporation and Krishna Enterprise, the Ld.AR submitted all details such as PAN, Bank Statement extract reflecting the finance received substantiating the Genuineness of the said Party, ITR Acknowledgement of the return filed by the said Party for AY 2013-14 substantiating the Creditworthiness of the said Party, Ledger Confirmation of the said party substantiating the Identity, PAN, Sample copy of cheques issued to the said Party which are obtained from Bank. The three kay ingredients being Identity, Genuineness and Creditworthiness of the said parties being proven, the said transactions cannot be said to be bogus. All the documents prove that the assessee have received short term finances and also repaid the amounts. Hence, we hold that no addition in this is called for. to 1781/Ahd/2024 Asst.Years –(2013-14 to 2015-16) - 11–
In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed.