2025 (5) TMI 1969 - HC - Income Tax

Assessee acting as mere conduit for routing accommodation entries cannot be taxed on unexplained credits under Section 68

Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi-7 Versus Third Generation Traders Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi HC held that an assessee company acting as a mere conduit for routing accommodation entries through banking channels cannot be taxed on unexplained ... Unexplained credits u/s 68 - Addition on protective basis - commission charges payable on account of routing accommodation entries and accordingly, computed the Assessee’s commission income at the rate of 0.25% HELD THAT:- Assessee’s opening balances and closing balances are substantially the same. There is only a minor variation between the credit balance and the debit balance of the Assessee in the bank account. This also supports our understanding of the assessment order, which although not clear, indicate that the Assessee was used as pass-through entity for extending accommodation entries to the ultimate beneficiaries. As also noted that no cash deposits are made in the bank accounts of the Assessee. The amounts received by the Assessee were from different entities, which according to the Revenue were also used for routing the undisclosed income of the beneficiaries. It is the Revenue’s case that the Jain Brothers were, at the material time, the accommodation entry operators who had introduced the funds and routed the same through banking channels to the ultimate beneficiaries. Apparently, the Jain Brothers also had done so on certain commission. It is clear from the above, the commission for providing entries to beneficiaries would be the real income of Jain Brothers and there is no material to indicate that the Assessee had earned any commission income. This is so because, according to the AO, the Assessee company was a conduit operated by Jain Brothers. There was income in the hands of the Assesee and it was merely a conduit. The credit, which has been introduced in the books of the Assessee was matched by a debit to the other entities used to route the funds to the ultimate beneficiaries. CIT(A) and the learned ITAT had held that the unexplained credits were liable to be taxed in the hands of the beneficiaries. And, since the same had been done, there is no occasion of taxing the channels through which the amounts were routed. No substantial questions of law arise 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered by the Court in the present appeals arising from assessment years 2012-13 to 2017-18 are as follows:A. Whether the deletion of additions made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act on account of unexplained credits in the bank accounts of the Assessee was erroneous, given the failure of the Assessee to produce concrete evidence supporting the genuineness of such creditsRs.B. Whether the deletion of additions made on account of commission income at the rate of 0.25%-allegedly earned by the Assessee for facilitating accommodation entries-was justified, considering the Assessee's role as a conduit companyRs.C. Whether the Tribunal erred in disregarding precedents concerning the nature and effect of protective assessments, particularly the principle that protective assessments result only in a paper demand not enforceable until final adjudicationRs.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue A: Validity of deletion of additions under Section 68 for unexplained creditsRelevant legal framework and precedents: Section 68 of the Income Tax Act permits the Assessing Officer (AO) to treat unexplained credits in the books of account as income if the assessee fails to satisfactorily explain the nature and source of such credits. The burden lies on the assessee to prove the genuineness of the entries. Precedents emphasize that if the assessee fails to provide adequate evidence, additions under Section 68 are justified.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The AO, following a search and seizure operation at the premises of persons associated with the Jain Brothers, concluded that the Assessee was used as a conduit for routing accommodation entries. The AO's assessment order, though vague, indicated that the Assessee's bank accounts reflected credits that were introduced and then routed to other entities controlled by the Jain Brothers, ultimately benefiting undisclosed beneficiaries.The Court noted the tabular statement submitted by the Revenue showing that the credit and debit balances in the Assessee's bank accounts during the relevant years were substantially the same, indicating that the Assessee was merely passing through funds without retaining them. Furthermore, no cash deposits were made, supporting the view that the Assessee was not the real beneficiary of the credited amounts.Key evidence and findings: The search and seizure operation produced incriminating documents linking the Assessee to accommodation entries. The AO's satisfaction under Section 153C was recorded based on these documents. The tabular bank statement showed near-equality of credits and debits, negating the possibility of the Assessee having unexplained income.Application of law to facts: Since the substantive additions on account of unexplained income were made in the hands of the ultimate beneficiaries, the Court found no justification in taxing the Assessee, which acted as a conduit. The Tribunal and CIT(A) had rightly deleted the additions under Section 68 in the hands of the Assessee on this basis.Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue argued that the Assessee failed to produce concrete evidence to explain the credits and that the deletion of additions was erroneous. The Court, however, found that the Revenue's own evidence indicated the Assessee's role as a pass-through entity, and the substantive income was rightly taxed in the hands of the beneficiaries.Conclusions: The deletion of additions under Section 68 was upheld as the Assessee was not the real beneficiary of the credits, and the substantive income was taxed elsewhere.Issue B: Deletion of additions on account of commission incomeRelevant legal framework and precedents: Income arising from commission for facilitating accommodation entries is taxable. The AO computed commission income at 0.25% of the routed amounts, treating the Assessee as having earned such commission.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court observed that the AO's own findings indicated that the Assessee was merely a conduit operated by the Jain Brothers, who were the actual operators charging commission for accommodation entries. There was no material to show that the Assessee earned any commission income.Key evidence and findings: The AO's assessment order and the tabular bank statement showed the Assessee did not retain any amounts as commission. The amounts credited and debited were nearly identical, negating any commission income.Application of law to facts: Since the Assessee did not earn commission income and was only a pass-through entity, the additions on account of commission income were rightly deleted by the CIT(A) and upheld by the Tribunal.Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue contended that commission income was rightly added, but the Court found no supporting evidence for such income in the Assessee's books.Conclusions: The deletion of commission income additions was upheld.Issue C: Treatment of protective assessments and reliance on precedentsRelevant legal framework and precedents: Protective assessments under the Income Tax Act are made to safeguard the Revenue's interest pending final adjudication. Precedents such as the decisions in Lalji Haridas vs. ITO and CIT, Gujarat II vs. Surendra Gulab Chand Modi establish that protective assessments result only in a paper demand not enforceable until finality.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Revenue argued that the Tribunal erred in ignoring these precedents and that protective assessments should be sustained until final adjudication. The Court noted that the Tribunal's decision to delete additions was based on the fact that substantive additions had been made in the hands of the real beneficiaries, making protective additions in the hands of the Assessee untenable.Key evidence and findings: The finality of assessment in the hands of beneficiaries and the absence of substantive income in the Assessee's hands were crucial in the Court's view.Application of law to facts: The Court found that since the substantive assessments were complete, the protective additions in the Assessee's hands could not be sustained, consistent with the principle that protective assessments do not create enforceable demands.Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue's reliance on protective assessment jurisprudence was noted but found inapplicable given the factual matrix where substantive assessments had been finalized.Conclusions: The Tribunal's approach was upheld, and no error was found in disregarding the protective assessment precedents in the given circumstances.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS'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.''The credit, which has been introduced in the books of the Assessee was matched by a debit to the other entities used to route the funds to the ultimate beneficiaries. In the aforesaid context the CIT(A) and the learned ITAT had held that the unexplained credits were liable to be taxed in the hands of the beneficiaries. And, since the same had been done, there is no occasion of taxing the channels through which the amounts were routed.'Core principles established include:The unexplained credits routed through a conduit company are to be taxed in the hands of the ultimate beneficiaries and not the conduit entity.Protective additions cannot be sustained once substantive assessments have been completed in the hands of the real beneficiaries.The role of the Assessee as a conduit or pass-through entity negates the existence of unexplained income or commission income in its hands.Final determinations:The additions under Section 68 for unexplained credits in the Assessee's hands were rightly deleted.The additions on account of commission income were rightly deleted.No substantial question of law arises; the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.