TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 1263
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....given to cross-examine the deponents. 3. That on facts, and in law, the learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1,42,78,300/- made u/s.68 of the Act. 4. That the confirmation of the above addition amounts to double taxation as the said amount is already included in sales of appellant. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend any ground of appeal. 3. At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that he has been instructed by the assessee not to press ground No. 1 and 2 challenging the validity of the reopening of the assessment under section 147 of the Act on various counts. Accordingly, we dismiss the grounds raised by the assessee as not pressed. 4. The solitary and effective ground of appeal raised by the assessee in ground numbers 3 and 4 is that the learned CIT-A erred in confirming the addition made by the AO for Rs. 1,42,78,300.00 on account of unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 5. In the present case, the proceedings against the assessee were initiated based on the materials found and the statements recorded during search and seizure operation conducted dated 16 January 2014 in the case of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has been made payment by Jalaram group on his behalf, but the assessee failed to discharge the onus. Accordingly, the learned CIT-A confirmed the addition made by the AO. 9. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT-A, the assessee is in appeal before us. 10. The learned AR before us filed paper books running from pages 1 to 191 and 1 to 135 along with written submissions and case laws. The ld. AR contended that the assessee cannot be penalized on account of the payment made by its debtors through the third party. The assessee furnished the necessary details about the sales made to the third party which evidences that the primary onus was discharged. The ld. AR reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below. 11. On the contrary, the learned DR before us vehemently supported the order of the lower authorities. 12. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. In the present case, the assessee has received a sum of Rs. 1,42,78,300.00 from the M/s Jalaram Finvest Group which was justified as receipt against the sales made to M/s Shaikh Brothers. However, the revenue has treated such amount as unexplained....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anything on record contrary to the argument advanced by the assessee as discussed above. Thus, in such a situation, we can draw an inference that the parties namely M/s Jalaram Finvest Ltd and Shri Dahyalal Ishwarlal were not engaged in providing the accommodation entries as alleged by the Revenue. 12.3 Besides the above, we also note that the assessee was subject to audit under the provisions of section 44 AB of the Act. The return of income under section 139 of the Act was filed by the assessee dated 30 September 2013 declaring total income of Rs. 41,10,565.00 only. All these facts can be verified from the details placed on pages 1 to 20 of the paper book. In simple words, the assessee has already shown the receipt of money from M/s Jalaram Finvest Ltd against the sales made to M/s Shaikh Traders. Thus, it cannot be said that the assessee has misrepresented the facts in the return of income filed under the provisions of section 139 of the Act in order to avoid from the rigors of the provisions of section 68 of the Act with respect to the money received from M/s Jalaram Finvest Ltd. As such, the transaction showing the receipt of money against the sales made to M/s Shaikh Traders....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... But we find that such enquiries have not been carried out by the authorities below. 12.5 On perusal of the assessment order, it is noticed that the company namely M/s Jalaram Finvest Limited was preparing the accommodation entries voucher which was containing the details of the parties and the cash/ cheque received from such parties or given to such parties. The relevant observation in this regard of the AO is as under: Further, it has been stated by him that whenever a cheque is discounted or cheque/RTGS/DD etc is issued against cash they prepare accommodation entries voucher. On this voucher, name of the party from whom cash/cheque has been received and details of such cash/cheque received is mentioned. Details of cheque/RTGS/DD or cash given, against such cash/cheque received is also mentioned. Details of commission received, is also mentioned in the voucher. 12.6 However, the AO in his assessment order has nowhere pointed out the name of the assessee appeared on such vouchers. Thus, merely third-party has accepted to be engaged in the activity of accommodation entries does not authorize the revenue to draw an adverse inference against the assessee. 12.7 Moving further, ....