Girish Vrajlal Soni Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad)
Assessee, a trader in gold bars & ornaments, sold 350 grams of gold to Viko Enterprise on 15.11.2016 for ₹11,27,000, including service tax. The sale was supported by invoice, ledger, stock records & , most importantly, payment was received through RTGS in bank.
Despite this, AO treated the sale as a bogus accommodation entry merely because Viko Enterprise did not respond to notice u/s 133(6) & based on investigation wing inputs. He added the entire amount as unexplained money u/s 69A. CIT(A) upheld the addition, relying on decisions regarding bogus claims & held that entire amount must be disallowed.
Before ITAT, Assessee demonstrated that:
- Transaction was real & supported by documentary evidence.
- Bank trail clearly showed receipt of sale consideration.
- No incriminating material was found by the Investigation Wing against Assessee.
- Non-response of the customer to 133(6) notice cannot make a genuine sale bogus.
Tribunal noted that:
- Assessee provided invoice, ledger, stock register, & bank statement.
- Payment was through banking channels – not cash.
- Revenue brought no evidence to prove the transaction was accommodation entry.
- Mere non-response from purchaser or general investigation reports cannot override concrete evidence.
Hence, ITAT held that the sale was genuine, & the addition u/s 69A was unjustified.
Paid content
Become a Basic or Premium Member, or log in if you are already a Basic or Premium member.
