2012 (9) TMI 995 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition of Rs. 18,07,000/- made on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act.
2. Confirmation of addition of Rs. 2,99,950/- made out of Rs. 38,49,950/- on account of unexplained cash credit.

Summary:

Issue 1: Deletion of Addition of Rs. 18,07,000/-
The Revenue appealed against the deletion of Rs. 18,07,000/- made on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act. The A.O. had observed that the assessee issued shares worth Rs. 18,07,000/- and took unsecured loans of Rs. 38,49,950/-. The A.O. issued summons u/s. 131 to verify the genuineness of the transactions and recorded statements of the persons involved. The A.O. made several observations, including discrepancies in signatures and insufficient agricultural income to justify cash deposits. However, the CIT (A) deleted the addition, citing that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the identity of the share applicants, many of whom were assessed to tax. The CIT (A) referenced the Supreme Court decision in CIT vs. Lovely Export Pvt. Ltd., concluding that the identity of the parties was established and there was no cogent evidence indicating that the share capital represented unaccounted income. The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s order, finding no reason to interfere.

Issue 2: Confirmation of Addition of Rs. 2,99,950/-
The CIT (A) partially upheld the addition made by the A.O. regarding unsecured loans, confirming Rs. 2,99,950/- out of Rs. 38,49,950/-. The CIT (A) noted that the assessee had borrowed from 21 depositors, with 9 being assessed to tax. The CIT (A) found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including income tax acknowledgements and bank statements, to establish the genuineness of loans from these depositors. For the remaining depositors, many appeared before the A.O. and confirmed the loan transactions, providing evidence of agricultural income and other sources. However, for two parties who did not appear before the A.O. and were not assessed to tax, the CIT (A) confirmed the addition of Rs. 2,99,950/-. The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s order, noting that the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the loans from these two parties.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection, upholding the CIT (A)'s order in its entirety. The order was pronounced in Open Court on 7-9-2012.