Unexplained bank credits treated as accommodation entries; full addition and related penalty upheld where genuine trading was not proved.

Bank credits were treated as unexplained income where the transaction pattern indicated routing of funds and accommodation entries, and the assessee failed to substantiate genuine fabric trading with dispatch and delivery records. The Tribunal held that restricting the addition to alleged commission income was incorrect and sustained the full addition under section 69A. Because the substantive addition survived, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was also maintained. The Revenue's appeals therefore succeeded, with both the addition and the related penalty upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the addition made under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of the bank credits was sustainable, and (ii) whether the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the sustained amount was liable to be maintained.

Issue (i): whether the addition made under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of the bank credits was sustainable.

Analysis: The bank account showed a transaction pattern indicating routing of funds and provision of accommodation entries. The explanation based on trading of fabrics was found unconvincing in the absence of supporting dispatch and delivery records. The credits were treated as unexplained because the account was used for beneficiary routing and the material on record did not establish genuine trading corresponding to the disputed entries. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in restricting the addition to alleged commission income and that the full addition made by the Assessing Officer was justified.

Conclusion: The addition under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was sustained in full and the issue was decided in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): whether the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the sustained amount was liable to be maintained.

Analysis: Since the substantive addition was upheld, the basis for the penalty also survived. The Tribunal therefore found no reason to interfere with the penalty order once the underlying concealment-related addition was confirmed.

Conclusion: The penalty was upheld and the issue was decided in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: Both revenue appeals succeeded, the substantive addition was restored, and the associated penalty order was also sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where bank credits are found to represent accommodation entry routing and the assessee fails to establish genuine delivery-backed business transactions, the credits may be treated as unexplained income, and a penalty predicated on the sustained addition can also be maintained.

---