Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, M/s. Bindal Oils Pvt. Ltd., was assessed for the year 2012-13. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 26,04,250/- on account of unexplained expenditure under Section 69C of the IT Act, 1961, treating it as unexplained. The assessee had denied any transactions with Shri Trilok Goel, from whom the alleged accommodation entries were received.
Held
The ITAT noted that the assessee consistently denied any transactions with Shri Trilok Goel and provided bank statements and an affidavit to support this claim. The Tribunal found that the addition was made by the Revenue Authorities despite the assessee's detailed reply and supporting documents. The Bench observed that if the Department finds no evidence of dealing, the addition should be deleted.
Key Issues
Whether the addition of Rs. 26,04,250/- made on account of unexplained expenditure under Section 69C is justified when the assessee has denied any transaction and provided supporting documents.
Sections Cited
69C, 142(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC’’ JAIPUR
Before: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAINvk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 741/JP/2023
ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 07-11-2023, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2012-13 raising therein following the grounds. ‘’1. That under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in confirming the 2 M/S. BINDAL OILS PVT LTD. VS ITO, WARD - BHIWADI additions made by AO on account of unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act amounting to Rs.26,04,250/- to the income of the appellant on this count is wrong, unwarranted and bad in law. Kindly delete the addition.
That under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in not applying N.P. Rate and wrongly treated the whole receipt as income of appellant is wrong, unwarranted and bad in law. Kindly provide appropriate relief to appellant.’’ 2.1 Apropos ground No. 1 & 2, the facts as emerges from the order of the ld.CIT(A) wherein the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under:- ‘’6.1. I have gone through the Assessment of the appellant. The AO has carried out additions to the tune of Rs 26,04,250/- being unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the IT Act, 1961. 6.2 During the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO has stated that the appellant received accommodation entries of Rs. 26.04.250/- from Shri Trilok Goel Prop. M/s Kalka Udyog and M/s Kalka Flour Mills in shape of bogus purchase of Rs. 26,04,250/- edible oil without receiving any goods during the year under consideration. 6.3 Further the AO has stated that during the course of the assessment proceedings, the statement of Shri Trilok Goel was recorded and further Shri Trilok Goel had admitted to deal with business of cash entry operator to amounting of Rs. 26,04,250/- in the year under consideration 6.4 The AO treated the amount of Rs. 26,04,250/- as unexplained and thereby added the same to the total income of the appellant.
3 M/S. BINDAL OILS PVT LTD. VS ITO, WARD - BHIWADI 6.5 it is noted from the submissions furnished by the appellant before this office that the appellant has stated that the appellant has not made any transactions with Shri Trilok Goel. Further the appellant has stated that if appellant would have received or paid to this party from bank, transaction would have existed in the bank statement. 6.6 It is noted that the appellant has not furnished any documentary evidences to substantiate his claim. As the appellant has failed to discharge its onus of proving genuineness of the transaction the addition made by AO is upheld. 6.7 In view of the above, I am of the considerate view that the reason mentioned for the unexplained expenditure by the appellant is not satisfied. Therefore, the addition made to the tune of Rs. 26,04,250/- being unexplained expenditure by the AO is upheld. 6.8 Accordingly, the Grounds of the appeal are dismissed.
2.2 During the course of hearing of the case, the Bench noted that addition u/s 69C on account of bogus purchases from Shri Trilok Goel Prop. M/s. Kalka Udyog and M/s. Kalka Flour Mills was made by the AO in the hands of the assessee whereas at every stage of proceedings before the AO as well as CIT(A), the assessee had categorically denied of having entered into any transaction with Trilok Goel Prop. M/s. Kalka Udyog and M/s. Kalka Flour Mills. In this regard, the assessee has submitted certain bank account statement of SBI having A/c No. 52042772959 for the period 01-04-2011 to 31-03-2012 and pointed out that there 4 M/S. BINDAL OILS PVT LTD. VS ITO, WARD - BHIWADI is not even a single entry reflected either on the credit or on the debit side of Shri Trilok Goel. Therefore, addition has been made wrongly in the hands of the assessee. Apart from this, the AO also issued query letter u/s. 142(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 14.10.2019 and asked specific queries, which are as follows:- A. Did you know Sh. Trilok Goyal Prop. M/s Kalka Udyog (Khasra No. 496, Fatehpur Beri, New Delhi) and M/s Kalka Flour Mills (Shop No.4, Dakshinpuri, New Delhi-110062). If yes, then file details of business relation with them. B. File copy of ledger account of M/s Kalka Udyog (Khasra No. 496, Fatehpur Beri, New Delhi), M/s Kalka Flour Mills (Shop No.4, Dakshinpuri, New Delhi- 110062) or in the name of Shri Trilok Goyal, S/o Sh. Prahlaad Rai Goyal, R/O B-73, Duggal Colony, Devali Road, Khanpur, New Delhi for the period F.Y.2010-11 and F.Y.2011- 12. In response to the above mentioned query, the assessee reiterated again & again on 02.12.2019, 12.12.2019, 13.12.2019 and 15.12.2019 vide response to Notice ID No. 100018144042 and stated that:- (i). The appellant denied for the same transaction with Shri Trilok Goel Prop. M/s. Kalka Udyog and M/s. Kalka Flour Mills. (ii). Appellant also denied the same fact on oath by submitting an affidavit dated 14.11.2019 (i.e. duly statement. notarized) in support of his statement.