Addition for alleged hawala cash credits u/s 68 deleted as genuine purchases and payments duly proved

ITAT Patna dismissed the Revenue's appeal challenging deletion of addition for alleged unexplained cash credits arising from purported hawala transactions. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that the assessee had conclusively established genuine supply of goods and corresponding payments through corroborative documentary evidence. It noted that substantial deposits existed in the supplier's bank account and that the supplier had duly filed its return of income. Further, the AO had relied on a third-party statement without affording the assessee an opportunity for cross-examination, vitiating the addition. Consequently, the addition under section 68 was rejected and the CIT(A)'s order sustained.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1.1 Whether the amount of Rs. 4,16,27,400/- received through banking channels from M/s Mahalaxmi Steel, claimed as sale consideration for Manganese Ore, could be treated as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act solely on the basis of an investigation report alleging hawala/accommodation entries.

1.2 Whether, in making the addition under Section 68, the Assessing Officer could rely on third-party statements and investigation reports without providing the assessee an opportunity of cross-examination and without bringing any independent evidence to disprove the assessee's documentary evidences of genuine sales.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 & 2: Addition under Section 68 in respect of amount received from M/s Mahalaxmi Steel; reliance on investigation report and denial of cross-examination

(a) Legal framework (as discussed)

2.1 The assessment was reopened under Sections 147/148 on the basis of information from the Directorate of Income-tax (I & CI), Bhopal, alleging that the assessee had received bogus cash credit entries from hawala operators routed through M/s Mahalaxmi Steel. The addition was made under Section 68 treating the receipts from M/s Mahalaxmi Steel as unexplained cash credit on the ground that the said concern was a bogus entity providing accommodation entries.

2.2 The appellate authority and the Tribunal examined the application of Section 68 in the context of: (i) documentary evidence produced by the assessee evidencing sale of goods, and (ii) use of third-party statements/investigation material without confronting the assessee or allowing cross-examination. Reliance was placed on judicial precedents holding that additions based solely on un-confronted third-party statements or photocopied documents, without opportunity of rebuttal or cross-examination, and without corroborative evidence, cannot be sustained.

(b) Interpretation and reasoning

2.3 The Assessing Officer relied mainly on the ITO (I & CI) report, which narrated investigation in respect of alleged fictitious persons (Anand Agrawal, Ashish Agrawal, Amit Purohit) and concluded that M/s Mahalaxmi Steel was a bogus concern routing cash deposits and providing accommodation entries, including to the assessee. Based on this, and absence of response to verification letter issued to M/s Mahalaxmi Steel, the Assessing Officer treated the entire sum of Rs. 4,16,27,400/- received from that party as unexplained cash credit under Section 68.

2.4 The assessee, on the other hand, consistently asserted that it had effected genuine sales of Manganese Ore to M/s Mahalaxmi Steel and received sale consideration through banking channels. In support, it produced: (i) ledger account of M/s Mahalaxmi Steel in its books; (ii) bank statements showing receipts through RTGS; (iii) tax invoices containing truck numbers, quantity, rate, CST, Form-C, etc.; (iv) road permits issued by the VAT Authorities of Jharkhand evidencing movement of goods from Jharkhand to Madhya Pradesh; and (v) evidence of CST payments to State authorities.

2.5 The Commissioner (Appeals) found that these are direct and third-party supported evidences of actual movement of goods and recorded sales, and that the Assessing Officer did not bring any material on record to establish that the transactions were collusive or sham. It was specifically observed that mere suspicion arising from the I & CI report and the pattern of cash deposits at the end of the chain cannot, by itself, displace the evidentiary value of the assessee's documents.

2.6 It was further noted that the Assessing Officer failed to: (i) rebut or discredit the sale invoices, road permits, and tax payment details; (ii) show that the assessee was a participant in any alleged accommodation entry arrangement; or (iii) demonstrate that no actual goods were supplied. No independent enquiry was made into the assessee's business activity or stock position to contradict the claim of genuine sales.

2.7 The Commissioner (Appeals) also recorded that the Assessing Officer did not provide the assessee any opportunity to cross-examine the persons whose statements or materials formed the basis of the I & CI conclusions, despite such material being used adversely. Relying on decisions of various Benches of the Tribunal, it was held that additions cannot be sustained where: (a) statements of third parties are not supplied to the assessee; (b) cross-examination is denied despite request; and (c) no corroborative evidence directly linking the assessee to the alleged bogus nature of the transactions is brought on record.

2.8 The Tribunal endorsed these findings, noting that: (i) the assessee had furnished comprehensive evidence demonstrating that the receipts represented sale consideration; (ii) the assessing authority acted only on the basis of suspicion generated by the I & CI report; and (iii) the assessee was not afforded cross-examination of the persons whose statements were relied upon to make the addition. The Tribunal agreed that suspicion, however strong, does not substitute for proof, particularly where the assessee's documentary evidence remains uncontroverted.

2.9 The Tribunal also noted that there were substantial deposits in the bank account of M/s Mahalaxmi Steel and that the said party had filed its return of income, further weakening the bare allegation of non-existence without deeper enquiry. In parallel, it relied on its own recent decision where similar additions on alleged bogus purchases were deleted after appreciation of documentary evidence and absence of contrary material or remand report from the Assessing Officer.

(c) Conclusions

2.10 The evidences produced by the assessee-ledger account, bank statements, invoices, VAT road permits, CST payments, and Form-C details-were accepted as establishing that the impugned amount represented genuine sale consideration for Manganese Ore supplied to M/s Mahalaxmi Steel.

2.11 The reliance by the Assessing Officer solely on the I & CI report and un-confronted third-party material, without providing statements to the assessee, without granting cross-examination, and without conducting independent verification to disprove the assessee's documents, was held insufficient to invoke Section 68 in respect of the said receipts.

2.12 The addition of Rs. 4,16,27,400/- made as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 was held to be based on mere suspicion and surmise, in disregard of direct and third-party corroborated evidence, and was therefore unsustainable.

2.13 The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) directing deletion of the addition of Rs. 4,16,27,400/- was upheld, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

---