2024 (9) TMI 1702 - AT - Income Tax

Revenue appeal dismissed as protective additions under section 68 cannot survive when substantive additions made against real beneficiaries

The ITAT Delhi dismissed the revenue's appeal regarding unexplained cash credit under section 68 and unaccounted commission additions. The tribunal held ... Unexplained cash credit u/s 68 - unaccounted commission - protective additions made at the hands of the assessee - HELD THAT:- As per observations of FAA since, the real beneficiaries, who have availed the accommodation entries were identified, the substantive additions have been made at their hands. That being the case, protective additions made at the hands of the assessee cannot survive. While considering identical nature of dispute arising in the case of similarly situated companies, allegedly managed and controlled by Jain Brothers, the Coordinate Bench in the cases M/s. Shivji Garments Pvt. Ltd. [2024 (2) TMI 454 - ITAT DELHI] and M/s. Zed Enterprises (P) Ltd.[2024 (1) TMI 1442 - ITAT DELHI] has upheld the decision of learned first appellate authority in deleting the addition. The factual position being identical in the present appeals, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of learned first appellate authority in deleting the additions. Revenue Grounds are dismissed. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in this judgment are:1. Whether the additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, can be sustained at the hands of the assessee when the real beneficiaries of the accommodation entries have been identified.2. Whether the addition of unaccounted commission income at the hands of the assessee is justified when the substantive addition has already been made at the hands of the alleged entry operators, namely, Sh. Anand Kumar Jain and Sh. Naresh Kumar Jain.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS1. Additions under Section 68 for Unexplained Cash CreditRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, deals with unexplained cash credits. If any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof, or the explanation offered is not satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer made protective additions at the hands of the assessee, while the substantive additions were made at the hands of the beneficiaries who availed the accommodation entries. The Tribunal observed that the first appellate authority concluded that once the beneficiaries are identified, the substantive addition should be made at their hands, not at the hands of the intermediary shell companies.Key Evidence and Findings: The evidence consisted of seized documents and ledgers during a search operation, which implicated the assessee as a shell company providing accommodation entries. The first appellate authority relied on the fact that the Investigation Wing had disseminated information to the respective Assessing Officers of the beneficiaries.Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the principle that when the actual beneficiaries of the funds are identified and substantive additions are made at their hands, protective additions at the hands of the intermediary entities are not sustainable.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Department argued for sustaining the additions based on the Assessing Officer's findings, while the assessee relied on precedents where similar additions were deleted by the Tribunal in cases involving other shell companies controlled by the same entry operators.Conclusions: The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the protective additions made under Section 68 at the hands of the assessee, as the substantive additions were made at the hands of the real beneficiaries.2. Addition of Unaccounted Commission IncomeRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The addition of commission income is typically made when an entity is found to be earning income by providing accommodation entries. The rate applied by the Assessing Officer was 0.25% of the total credit entries.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal agreed with the first appellate authority's reasoning that since the substantive addition of commission income was made at the hands of the entry operators, Sh. Anand Kumar Jain and Sh. Naresh Kumar Jain, no further addition could be justified at the hands of the shell companies.Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had identified the entry operators and that the commission income was already taxed in their individual capacities.Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the logic that once the commission income is taxed at the hands of the actual earners (entry operators), it cannot be taxed again at the hands of the intermediary shell companies.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Department's argument for sustaining the addition was countered by the assessee's reliance on precedents where similar additions were deleted by the Tribunal in cases involving other shell companies.Conclusions: The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the commission income addition at the hands of the assessee, as it was already taxed at the hands of the entry operators.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSCore Principles Established:The Tribunal reinforced the principle that protective additions at the hands of intermediary shell companies are not sustainable when substantive additions are made at the hands of the actual beneficiaries. Additionally, the Tribunal established that commission income cannot be taxed multiple times across different entities when it has already been taxed at the hands of the actual earners.Final Determinations on Each Issue:The Tribunal dismissed the appeals of the Revenue, upholding the decision of the first appellate authority to delete the protective additions of unexplained cash credit and commission income at the hands of the assessee.