Tribunal rules in favor of assessee, citing ITSC order's finality

The Tribunal held that as the assessee was one of the conduit companies controlled by S.K. Gupta, and the ITSC had already considered the undisclosed income in Gupta's hands, no separate addition under Section 68 was necessary for the conduit companies. The Tribunal emphasized the finality and binding nature of the ITSC's order, which the Revenue had not contested. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, directing the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Whether the assessee, being one of the conduit companies, should be taxed separately for the accommodation entries provided.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legitimacy of the Addition Made Under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:

The assessee, a company part of the S.K. Gupta Group, filed a return of income declaring a total income of Rs. 8,104 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09. A survey operation on 20.11.2007 revealed that S.K. Gupta admitted to providing accommodation entries through various companies controlled by him. The Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) directed the computation of the total undisclosed income in the hands of S.K. Gupta. Despite this, the Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 1,44,23,220 under Section 68 in the hands of the assessee. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] upheld this addition, stating that the transactions were non-genuine, the books of accounts did not reflect genuine transactions, and the source of cash deposits remained unexplained.

2. Whether the Assessee, Being One of the Conduit Companies, Should Be Taxed Separately for the Accommodation Entries Provided:

The Tribunal noted that the assessee is one of the 34 conduit companies controlled by S.K. Gupta. It was established that S.K. Gupta provided accommodation entries using various companies, depositing cash received from beneficiaries into the bank accounts of these companies and issuing cheques to the beneficiaries. The Tribunal referenced a previous decision where it was held that since the credit entries in the case of conduit companies were considered in the hands of S.K. Gupta by the ITSC, no separate addition under Section 68 was required in the hands of the conduit companies. The Tribunal emphasized that the order of the Settlement Commission is binding and final, and the Revenue had not challenged it. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 144A also directed that transactions should be taxed in the hands of beneficiaries and S.K. Gupta, without making any additions in the hands of conduit entities.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal concluded that since the assessee is one of the conduit companies, following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench, the addition under Section 68 cannot be made in the case of conduit companies. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the AO was directed to delete the addition made under Section 68 of the Act. The order was pronounced in the open court on 09th November 2017.

---