Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jaipur-1, Jaipur, Newcentral Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur (Raj v. Aman Exports International, G-93, Epip Sitapura, Industrialarea, Sitapura, Jaipur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.98/2024 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jaipur-1, Jaipur, NewCentral Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Appellant Versus Aman Exports International, G-93, EPIP Sitapura, IndustrialArea, Sitapura, Jaipur ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr.Anuroop Singhi, Adv. withMr.Aditya Khandelwal, Adv. For Respondent(s): HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAROrder 26/09/2024 -AVNEESH JHINGAN, J : 1.This appeal is filed against the order dated 24.08.2023passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Jaipur Bench, Jaipur(for short ‘the Tribunal). 2.The brief facts are that the assessee filed income tax returnpertaining to assessment year 2012-2013 declaring total incomeof Rs.66,19,020/-. On an information received by the AssessingOfficer (hereafter ‘AO’) that M/s. Venus Financial ConsultantPrivate Limited (hereafter ‘the Company’) was indulging inproviding accommodating entries, the proceedings were initiatedunder Section 148 of the Income Act, 1961 (hereafter ‘the Act’)and addition of Rs.15 Lakh was made under Section 68 of the Actand also of Rs.1,01,505/- under Section 40A(3) of the Act. Theappeal was dismissed by the CIT (A) on 03.03.2023. The assesseesucceeded before the Tribunal and hence, the present appeal. 3.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the tax effectis of Rupees Five Lakh but the case falls within the exception carved out in para 3.1 (h) of Circular No.5 of 2024 and it was acase of accommodation entry. 4.The Tribunal while accepting the appeal considered that theproceeding under Section 148 of the Act was initiated on aninformation received from Kolkata that the Company was indulgingin providing accommodation entries. A finding was recorded thatthe loan borrowed by the assessee from the Company wassupported by evidence i.e. (i) the loan was through account payeecheque; (ii) assessee paid interest on the loan and (iii) deductedTDS; (iv) the identity and credit worthiness of the Company wasproved and affidavit affirming the transaction by the lendercompany was produced before the Tribunal which remaineduncontroverted and (v) the loan was repaid in the year 2014. TheTribunal further held that the information received by the AO thatthe Company was indulging in providing accommodation entries initself will not be sufficient for disallowing the genuine transactionof loan and made basis for making addition. The issue was ofproving genuineness of transaction and the case does not fallwithin the exception carved out in para 3.1 (h) of CircularNo.5/2024. 5.The tax effect is less than Rupees Two Crores, in view ofCircular No.9/2024 the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.The proposed substantial question of law is kept open. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR), J HS/Tanisha/14 (AVNEESH JHINGAN), J