2013 (5) TMI 895 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 40A(3) - Payments in cash higher than the specified limits 20, 000/- - Held that - Sec 40A(3) is brought for curbing the circulation of black money and if payments made are bonafide then there is no requirement to make the disallowance - the plea of the assessees needs reconsideration - Issue is set aside - allowed for statistical purposes. Addition made u/s.68 - genuineness of transaction identity and capacity of the creditor - Held that - Assessee was showing the debtors having credit balances - accordingly requested to file the confirmations and PANs of the concerned debtors - the burden is on the assessee to prove the creditworthiness - assessee failed to discharge the burden- Decided against the assessee Assessee has advanced no interest has been charged - Held that - The contention of the assessees that there were trade advances on which no interest was charged has not been properly appreciated by the authorities below - the capital account of the assessee has credit balances - then to that extent it can be said that the assessee has advanced the money interest-free otherwise also out of assessees own capital - Matter Remanded to AO

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance under Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Disallowance of interest-free advances.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance under Section 40A(3):
The first issue concerns the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer (AO) for cash payments exceeding Rs. 20,000, invoking Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessees, engaged in scrap trading, made cash payments during auctions held by various government bodies like MSRTC, MSEB, etc. The AO disallowed these payments, arguing that these bodies are autonomous and not government authorities, and there were no exceptional circumstances necessitating cash payments. The assessees contended that these payments were mandatory as per auction rules and relied on Rule 6DD, which exempts certain payments from the purview of Section 40A(3). They argued that these autonomous bodies are instrumentalities of the government and should be considered as part of the government under Rule 6DD(b).

The Tribunal examined the nature of these bodies and concluded that entities like MSRTC and MSEB, fully controlled by the government, qualify as government instrumentalities under Article 12 of the Constitution. The Tribunal set aside the disallowance issue to the CIT(A) for reconsideration, directing a fresh examination in light of these observations.

2. Addition under Section 68:
The second issue pertains to the addition of unexplained cash credits under Section 68. The AO made additions in various cases where the assessees failed to provide confirmations, PANs, or sufficient evidence to prove the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of creditors. For instance, in the case of Shri Manikchand G. Raisoni, an addition of Rs. 18,00,000 was made due to unverified debtor balances. Similar additions were made for other assessees like Shri Sanjay M. Raisoni and Shri Santosh M. Raisoni for different assessment years.

The Tribunal upheld these additions, emphasizing that the burden of proof lies on the assessees to substantiate the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditors. The Tribunal found that the assessees failed to discharge this burden and thus confirmed the additions made by the AO and CIT(A).

3. Disallowance of Interest-free Advances:
The third issue involves the disallowance of interest expenses claimed by the assessees while they had also advanced interest-free loans to various parties. For example, in the case of Shri Manikchand G. Raisoni for A.Y. 2007-08, the AO disallowed Rs. 4,39,797 of interest claimed, noting that the assessee had advanced Rs. 94,13,089 without charging interest. Similar disallowances were made for other assessees.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees argued these were trade advances and that they had sufficient capital balances to cover these advances. The Tribunal found that this aspect was not properly considered by the lower authorities and thus set aside the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing a thorough examination of the nature of advances and the capital balances.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals for statistical purposes, directing the CIT(A) to reconsider the disallowance under Section 40A(3) and the disallowance of interest-free advances, while upholding the additions under Section 68. The judgment emphasizes the importance of substantiating claims with adequate evidence and the need for a detailed examination of the nature of transactions and the entities involved.

← Previous Next →