2025 (10) TMI 1225 - AT - Income Tax

Additions under s.153C quashed: share-transfer commissions attributed to individual, not company; seizure material failed to link income

ITAT DELHI - AT held that additions in the company's hands under s.153C-a 1% commission on share transfers and a Rs.25,91,654 addition based on a 4% ... Assessment u/s 153C - addition being 1% of the total capital in the hands of the assessee company - activity of transfer of shares carried by the share holders - HELD THAT:- No reference is made by the AO of any incriminating material whatsoever found as a result of search in the case of third person and the proceedings were initiated u/s 153C solely on the averment made by Sh. Himanshu Verma that he was controlling and managing various company including the assessee for providing accommodation entries. It is further seen that in the statements as reproduced in the assessment order, it is stated by the Sh. Himanshu Verma no entry was provided by him on commission basis and the entry, if any, is routed was per his directions and he was in receipt of the commission for such entry and not by the assessee company. It is admitted fact that Sh. Himanshu Verma is controlling the assessee company, therefore, any commission receipt was his own income. As seen that during the course of cross examination of Sh. Himanshu Verma before the AO, he accepted that shares of the assessee company were transferred by him after charging 1% commission on total capital. Since, the assessee is a artificial judicial person and cannot be transferred and its management can be transferred through transfer of its share which are held by the share holders and transfer of shares by the shareholders is their domain and the company has no control over the same. Accordingly on the activity of transfer of shares carried by the share holders, if any commission is paid / received, said transaction is between the new shareholders and old share holder for which no addition cold be made in the hands of the assessee company. Accordingly, we find no reason to make the addition being 1% of the total capital in the hands of the assessee company which is hereby directed to be deleted. Addition made by applying 4% of the commission rate on the total transactions in the bank accounts of the assessee, we find that this addition is made solely on the basis of the statement of Sh. Himanshu Verma wherein he admitted that he is controlling and managing the assessee company and providing accommodation entries to various persons by charging commission @ 4%. It is further seen that in preceding assessment years i.e. in Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2015-16 proceedings u/s 153C were initiated, however, no addition were made in the hands of the assessee company on the transactions carried by its bank account by holding the same as pertaining to Sh. Himanshu Verma. However, in the year under appeal though the share were transferred by Sh. Himanshu Verma but the facts remained that transactions in the bank account were carried were on the instructions of Shri Himanshu Verma and, therefore, the income, if any, accrued on account of commission, the same was received by Sh. Sh. Himanshu Verma and, thus, no addition could be made in the hands of the assessee company. Accordingly, we direct the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 25,91,654/- made in the hands of the assessee company. Validity of the satisfaction note and initiation of the proceedings in the hands of assessee company based on such satisfaction note u/s 153C - From the perusal of the satisfaction note so recorded as reproduced hereinabove, we find that the satisfaction note had the reference of gross amounts of credit entries in the bank accounts maintained by the assessee company which are disclosed bank account and cannot be held as incriminating material. Therefore, the entries contained therein cannot be held as unexplained. Moreover, we are in agreement with the contention of the AR that in the satisfaction note no year wise transactions were reported which could be held as incriminating for which the proceedings u/s 153C were initiated. Identical issue was came before the Co-ordinate Bench for consideration in the case of Super Bazar Stores Pvt. Ltd. [2025 (4) TMI 1130 - ITAT DELHI] wherein the Co-ordinate Bench after considering the facts has held that the satisfaction note so recorded is vague and non-descriptive and quashed the consequent orders passed u/s 153C of the Act. As the facts of the present case are identical to the facts of the case of the Super Bazar (supra) wherein the Co-ordinate bench has held that when the satisfaction note has not spelt out the yearwise quantum of the income bases on the seized material, the consequent orders passed u/s 153 has not force in law. Thus, we hereby allowed the legal grounds taken by the assessee and quashed the orders passed u/s 153C. The assessee succeeds on legal as well as on merits of the grounds taken before us. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether the satisfaction note recorded for initiating proceedings under section 153C of the Income Tax Act is valid where it is collective, non-descriptive and does not specify year-wise incriminating material. 2. Whether commission income estimated at 4% on total bank credits (accumulated credits as base) can be brought to tax in the hands of the company under section 153C where the searched person admitted controlling the company and earning commission personally. 3. Whether an addition of 1% of total capital as unexplained investment/commission on sale of the company is sustainable in the hands of the company when admissions indicate sale consideration was between shareholders/individuals. 4. Whether accumulated bank credits (including amounts alleged to be receivables or opening balances) can legitimately be taken as the base for estimating commission income in accommodation-entry cases. 5. Whether incriminating material for the purposes of section 153C may validly include statements recorded under section 132(4)/131 and whether such statements alone are sufficient to sustain additions in the absence of year-wise nexus between seized material and assessment years. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Validity of Satisfaction Note under section 153C (Legal framework) Legal framework: Section 153C permits assessments in the hands of a person other than the searched person if the authorized officer is satisfied that books/documents seized in search of the searched person belong to or pertain to that other person; the satisfaction furnishes jurisdiction to issue notices. Precedent Treatment: The Court/Tribunal followed jurisdictional precedents emphasizing that the satisfaction note must relate seized material to specific assessment years and must disclose application of mind (jurisdictional High Court and Coordinate Bench rulings referred to in the judgment). Interpretation and reasoning: The satisfaction note under challenge was collective, generic and did not identify year-wise incriminating material; it referred only to gross bank credits and a general admission by the searched person. The Tribunal held that where the satisfaction note fails to specify the material that is likely to influence determination of total income for particular assessment years, the assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C is vitiated. The Tribunal relied on the principle that discovery of material for a particular year does not automatically open all years and that reasons must be recorded if material is to be treated as incriminating for multiple years. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - A satisfaction note which is vague, non-descriptive and fails to identify year-wise incriminating material does not confer valid jurisdiction under section 153C; the exercise of power must show application of mind and year-wise nexus. Obiter - Observations on what constitutes adequate year-wise reasons in other factual permutations. Conclusions: The satisfaction note was held legally infirm; proceedings and consequential assessments under section 153C were quashed for lack of proper jurisdictional satisfaction. This rationale governed disposal of all three assessment years. Issue 2 - Taxation of commission income at 4% on total credits: basis, attribution and admissibility Legal framework: Income is taxable in the hands of the person who earns it; in accommodation-entry cases, estimation principles permit tax authorities to estimate commission income where the company functions as a conduit and evidence supports such estimation. Precedent Treatment: Revenue relied on settled practice in accommodation-entry jurisprudence to estimate commission on gross routed credits. The Tribunal acknowledged these precedents but held that jurisdictional infirmity in the satisfaction note precluded sustaining the particular additions in the company's hands. Interpretation and reasoning: Factually, the searched person had admitted control and receipt of commission; previous assessment years had treated the income as belonging to the searched person. The Tribunal found that for the relevant year the admitted position was that the searched person continued to control operations and commission receipts; moreover, the satisfaction note did not link seized material year-wise to justify reassessment of the company for that year. As a result, the 4% commission addition, being founded primarily on the defective satisfaction and on admissions indicating personal receipt by the searched person, could not be sustained against the company. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Even where estimation methodology and precedents allow taxation of commission on gross credits, such additions cannot be sustained if jurisdiction under section 153C is vitiated by an inadequate satisfaction note or where evidence shows the income accrued to the searched person rather than the company. Obiter - Commentary that 4% is an accepted estimation rate in similar cases where jurisdictional and evidentiary requisites are satisfied. Conclusions: The Tribunal directed deletion of the 4% commission addition in the hands of the company on the dual grounds of (a) defective satisfaction note lacking year-wise incriminating nexus; and (b) admissions indicating that commission accrued to the searched person. Issue 3 - Addition of 1% of capital as commission on sale of company Legal framework: Additions for unexplained investments or receipts may be made where credible evidence establishes receipt of consideration; however, company is a juristic person and transfers of shares occur between shareholders - not a transfer of the company as an asset of the company itself. Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal applied the statutory/corporate principle that sale of a company is effected by transfer of shares between shareholders; any commission or consideration flowing between sellers and purchasers of shares is not an income of the company unless the company itself receives it. Interpretation and reasoning: The searched person admitted that shares had been transferred for commission, but such transactions are between shareholders and do not generate income in the hands of the company. The Tribunal held that the addition of 1% of capital in the company's hands was therefore unsustainable and deleted the addition. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - An addition attributed to the company on account of share-transfer consideration between shareholders is not sustainable where evidence shows the transaction concerned payments between private parties and no receipt by the company. Obiter - Discussion on evidentiary sufficiency of admissions and cross-examination corroboration in assessing such claims. Conclusions: The 1% addition on account of alleged sale consideration of the company was deleted in the company's hands. Issue 4 - Use of accumulated credits (including opening receivables) as the base for estimating commission Legal framework: In accommodation entry cases, authorities may use gross bank credits routed through a conduit as an indicator of turnover for estimating commission, provided genuineness and source are rebutted. Precedent Treatment: Revenue relied on precedents allowing estimation on gross credits; Tribunal acknowledged that principle but required proper jurisdictional foundation and year-wise linkage of incriminating material to the assessment year. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted the Revenue's contention that both fresh credits and rotation of funds constitute accommodation entries and that the assessee bore the onus of proving genuineness. Nevertheless, because the satisfaction note failed to relate seized material to particular years and because admissions pointed to the searched person's receipt of commission, treating the entire accumulated credits as the company's base for commission estimate could not be sustained in this matter. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - The method of estimating commission from accumulated credits is permissible where the statutory jurisdictional prerequisites and year-wise nexus of incriminating material exist; absence of such prerequisites undermines the estimation. Obiter - Observations on the onus of proof and rotation of funds as indicia of accommodation entries. Conclusions: The Tribunal quashed assessments that used accumulated credits as the base for commission estimation, on jurisdictional and attribution grounds. Issue 5 - Evidentiary value of statements under sections 132(4)/131 and sufficiency as incriminating material Legal framework: Statements recorded under section 132(4)/131 are admissible and may constitute incriminating material; such statements can be corroborative evidence for additions if tied to seized material and relevant assessment years. Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal recognized authorities where sworn statements were held to be incriminating material sufficient to initiate proceedings; however, it emphasized that such statements must be linked to seized material and must be reflected in the satisfaction note with adequate particularity for specific years. Interpretation and reasoning: Although admissions by the searched person were admitted and cross-examined, the Tribunal found that the satisfaction note did not identify the seized material or explain year-wise impact; consequently, reliance solely on statements without fulfilling the statutory requirement of a reasoned satisfaction for particular years was inadequate to sustain the impugned assessments in the company's hands. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Statements under section 132(4)/131 can be incriminating material but cannot substitute for a reasoned, year-wise satisfaction note required under section 153C; both the material and the satisfaction must demonstrate nexus to the assessment years. Obiter - Notes on corroborative weight of cross-examination and documentary evidence when properly connected to the satisfaction. Conclusions: While sworn statements have evidentiary value, their sufficiency to sustain section 153C actions depends on a valid, descriptive satisfaction note linking material to specific assessment years; absence of that link mandates quashing of assessments. Overall Disposition Because the satisfaction note was held vague, non-descriptive and lacking year-wise nexus to incriminating material, the Tribunal quashed the assessments initiated under section 153C for the impugned years. Consequentially, additions of 4% commission on accumulated credits and 1% on account of alleged sale consideration were deleted in the company's hands: the 1% addition was also unsustainable on corporate law grounds (receipt between shareholders), and the 4% addition was unsustainable due to defective jurisdictional foundation and evidence indicating commission accrued to the searched person.