Advertisement
Advertisement
Skip to content
Follow Us on
Advertisement
TOP STORIES
Income Tax

Section 69C Addition Deleted for Lack of Corroborative Evidence & Cross-Examination: ITAT Pune

Case Law Details

TaxGuru Citation
2026 taxguru.in 8570
Case Name
ITO Vs Pramod Roshanlal Agarwal (ITAT Pune)
Date of Judgement/Order
Only available for paid members
Related Assessment Year
2022-23
Advertisement

ITO Vs Pramod Roshanlal Agarwal (ITAT Pune)

No cross-examination, no corroborative evidence: ITAT Pune upholds deletion of ₹1.14 crore addition under Section 69C

Case Summary:

The case arose from an assessment framed for AY 2022-23, wherein the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 1,14,39,908 under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, alleging that the assessee had paid cash to obtain accommodation entries for import transactions through a hawala network. The addition was primarily based on statements recorded during a search conducted in the case of two other individuals, who allegedly admitted to operating a syndicate facilitating foreign remittances through bogus entities. The Revenue also relied upon certain WhatsApp chats to contend that the assessee had availed accommodation entries in lieu of cash payments.

During the assessment proceedings, the assessee denied the allegations and submitted comprehensive documentary evidence, including import invoices, letters of credit, bills of entry, customs clearance documents, transportation receipts, warehouse and insurance invoices, bank statements evidencing payments through banking channels, and sales records of the imported goods. The assessee also requested an opportunity to cross-examine whose statement formed the sole basis of the addition. However, no effective cross-examination was provided.

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), after examining the documentary evidence, deleted the addition holding that the Assessing Officer had failed to produce any corroborative material establishing that the assessee had made cash payments or received accommodation entries. The CIT(A) further held that denial of cross-examination violated the principles of natural justice.

Paid content

Become a Premium Member, or log in if you are already a Premium member.

Advertisement

Author Info

Sachin P Kumar and Associates
Qualification: PhD , LLM
Company: Sachin P. Kumar and Associates
Location: Pune, Maharashtra
Articles Published: 16

Join TaxGuru's Network for the latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.