2020 (4) TMI 793 - SC - Income Tax

Supreme Court overturns tax addition, citing lack of evidence.

Basir Ahmed Sisodiya Versus The Income Tax Officer

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the addition of Rs. 2,26,000 under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court found that the ... Addition u/s 68 - Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - concealment of particulars - unexplained cash credit / bogus purchases - At the time of assessment, the appellant/assessee had failed to produce any explanation or evidence in support of the entries regarding purchases made from unregistered dealers. In the penalty proceedings, however, the appellant/assessee produced affidavits of 13 unregistered dealers out of whom 12 were examined by the Officer. HELD THAT:- The appellate authority vide order dated 13.1.2011, had not only accepted the explanation offered by the appellant/assessee but also recorded a clear finding of fact that there was no concealment of income or furnishing of any inaccurate particulars of income by the appellant/assessee for the assessment year 19981999. That now being the indisputable position, it must necessarily follow that the additions cannot be justified, much less, maintained. Addition under Section 68 towards cash credit amount shown against the names of concerned unregistered dealers for the assessment year 1998-1999, is hereby set aside. - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues Involved:1. Legitimacy of additions made under 'Trading Account' and 'Credits' in the assessment order.2. Applicability of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for cash credits.3. Validity of relying on rejected books of account for imposing additions.4. Impact of penalty proceedings and subsequent findings on the assessment order.Detailed Analysis:1. Legitimacy of Additions under 'Trading Account' and 'Credits':The appellant/assessee was served with a notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1998-1999. The Officer made certain additions under the heads 'Trading Account' and 'Credits,' specifically treating Rs. 2,26,000 as 'Cash credits' under Section 68 of the 1961 Act. The Officer noted that the assessee failed to provide satisfactory evidence regarding the credits shown in the names of 15 persons. This amount was added to the declared income of the assessee.2. Applicability of Section 68 for Cash Credits:The Officer treated the credits amounting to Rs. 2,26,000 as unexplained under Section 68 of the 1961 Act. The High Court upheld this addition, stating that the amount shown as credits was bogus and justly added to the income of the assessee. The Court noted that the assessee failed to prove the correctness and genuineness of the claim regarding purchases from unregistered dealers.3. Validity of Relying on Rejected Books of Account:The principal argument of the appellant/assessee was that once the books of account were rejected, they could not be relied upon by the Officer to impose subsequent additions. The High Court dismissed this argument, stating that the books of account could still be used to identify assets wrongly shown as liabilities, even if they were rejected for assessing gross profit.4. Impact of Penalty Proceedings and Subsequent Findings:The appellant/assessee presented additional evidence during penalty proceedings, including affidavits from 13 creditors and statements of 12 unregistered dealers. The CIT(A) accepted this evidence, concluding that there was no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee. This finding was pivotal as it contradicted the basis of the Officer's original addition of Rs. 2,26,000 under Section 68.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the addition of Rs. 2,26,000 under Section 68 of the 1961 Act. The Court noted that the factual basis for the Officer's addition was dispelled by the evidence presented during penalty proceedings. The rest of the assessment order, as modified by the CIT(A), remained undisturbed.