Accommodation-entry additions held to belong to HUF, not individual after bank verification under section 133(6)

ITAT held that the disputed accommodation-entry additions assessed against the taxpayer pertained to the taxpayer's HUF, not the individual, and directed their deletion. The AO had acknowledged-after bank verification under section 133(6)-that the bank account in question belonged to the HUF's proprietorship concern and that the bank had incorrectly linked the individual's PAN instead of the HUF's PAN. The department failed to controvert these facts at hearing; accordingly, the additions for all four years were held to belong to the HUF and relief was granted to the taxpayer.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether additions made on account of alleged accommodation entries can be sustained against the individual assessee when the bank account and the proprietorship concern receiving the alleged entries belong to the assessee's HUF.

2. Whether verification and findings recorded by the Assessing Officer (AO) in subsequent assessment years, including bank confirmation under section 133(6), can be relied upon to determine the correct person (individual v. HUF) to whom the impugned receipts pertain for the years under appeal.

3. What is the effect of the department's failure, after repeated opportunities, to controvert the factual contention that the proprietorship concern and its bank account belong to the HUF and not to the individual assessee.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Attribution of alleged accommodation-entry receipts to the correct taxable person (individual v. HUF).

Legal framework: Income must be attributed to the correct taxable person; additions on account of unexplained receipts/accommodation entries require factual nexus showing the receipts belong to the assessee against whom the addition is made. Bank-account ownership, PAN linkage and proprietorship status are relevant facts for attributing receipts.

Precedent treatment: No prior judicial precedent was cited or relied upon by the Tribunal in the present order.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined documentary evidence on record and found that M/s. Kabra & Co. was, as a matter of fact, the proprietorship concern of the assessee's HUF and that the bank account in which the alleged accommodation entries were received pertained to that proprietorship. The AO in later assessment years (A.Y. 2019-20) had verified this position by issuing notice under section 133(6) to the bank and recorded that the bank had linked the wrong PAN to the account; the bank acknowledged that the PAN of the HUF should have been linked. The Tribunal considered that where the information available to the department pertains to receipts in a bank account that has been shown and verified to belong to a different taxable entity (HUF), additions against the wrong entity (the individual) cannot be sustained.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - additions cannot stand against the individual where incontrovertible verification shows the receipts belonged to the HUF proprietorship concern; Obiter - none relevant on this point beyond the decision-specific factual application.

Conclusions: The additions made in the hands of the individual assessee for the years under appeal were not attributable to him but to the HUF proprietorship; therefore those additions were liable to be deleted.

Issue 2: Reliance on verification made in subsequent years and admissibility of such verification to rebut departmental information.

Legal framework: Facts establishing the correct owner of a bank account or business (PAN linkage, bank confirmations, assessment records) are relevant and admissible to determine attribution across years, subject to year-wise factual determination where necessary.

Precedent treatment: No prior authority was invoked; the Tribunal applied the general principle that factual verification recorded in taxation proceedings is admissible and may be determinative if not successfully controverted.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal accepted that while factual circumstances may vary year to year, the AO's independent verification in later years (by issuing notice under section 133(6) and obtaining bank acknowledgment that PAN was wrongly linked) established the veracity of the assessee's contention that Kabra & Co. was the HUF proprietorship. The Tribunal directed the Department to obtain a report from the AO to verify the position year-wise, but after multiple opportunities the Department failed to produce contrary verification for the impugned years. In that factual matrix the Tribunal treated the AO's later verification and the bank's acknowledgment as persuasive evidence to attribute the receipts to the HUF for the impugned years as well.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where independent verification by the AO (bank confirmation) shows the bank account and receipts belong to the HUF and the department fails to controvert same for the impugned years despite opportunity, such verification may be relied upon to attribute receipts correctly; Obiter - caution that year-wise differences may exist and, where controverted and shown, must be examined per year.

Conclusions: Subsequent AO verification and bank acknowledgment, when uncontroverted by the department after opportunities to do so, can be relied upon to determine attribution of receipts for the impugned years.

Issue 3: Procedural fairness, burden to produce contrary evidence, and consequences of departmental non-compliance with Tribunal directions.

Legal framework: The administrative process requires the tax department to investigate and produce evidence when factual attribution is disputed; the Tribunal may direct the AO to make inquiries and produce report. Repeated failure to comply with directions or to controvert established facts can justify adjudicatory relief in favour of the assessee.

Precedent treatment: No case law cited; the Tribunal applied procedural principles of giving and exhausting opportunities to the department and treating failure to contest established facts adversely to the department's case.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal initially directed the department to obtain AO's report verifying whether the bank account and proprietorship belonged to the HUF. The department was granted multiple adjournments but ultimately failed to produce the requested report. Given the AO had in later years recorded verification (including bank acknowledgment), and the department did not controvert this despite ample opportunity, the Tribunal found it appropriate to draw the inference that the factual position advanced by the assessee stood established. The Tribunal therefore declined further adjournments and proceeded to delete the additions.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where the department fails to comply with Tribunal directions and fails to controvert factual verification establishing the correct attribution of receipts, the Tribunal may decide the appeals in accordance with the uncontroverted facts; Obiter - the Tribunal noted that facts may vary by year and initial direction for AO verification was proper.

Conclusions: The department's failure, after repeated opportunities, to produce AO verification or to controvert the assessee's evidence justified acceptance of the assessee's factual position and deletion of the additions.

Overall Conclusion

The Tribunal concluded that the additions on account of alleged accommodation entries for the impugned years were attributed to the HUF proprietorship concern and not to the individual assessee, and accordingly directed deletion of the additions for all four assessment years. This determination rested on AO verification in subsequent years (including bank confirmation under section 133(6)), the bank's acknowledgment of PAN mis-linking, and the department's failure to controvert these facts despite multiple opportunities.

---