2014 (11) TMI 1155 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 - Held that - In all the three creditors, the assessee has proved the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the creditors by filing copy of confirmation with PAN number, copy of return, copy of bank statement and admission before the Assessing Officer U/s 131 of the Act. The sources have been explained by the cash creditors, therefore, we uphold the order of the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) has called remand report from the Assessing Officer, therefore, no violation under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal filed by Revenue against the order of CIT(A) for A.Y. 2008-09
- Deletion of addition by CIT(A) in cases of Shri Banshilal, Shri Kana Ram, and Shri Kailash Choudhary totaling Rs. 90 lakhs

Analysis:
1. The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order regarding the acceptance of stated credits under Sec. 68 of the Act. The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the remand report and not providing an opportunity under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules. The CIT(A) was accused of passing a perverse order by accepting explanations that were deemed mistaken and ignoring crucial details such as the cheque-bandli and financial capability of Sh. Kana Ram. The Revenue sought to add, alter, or withdraw grounds of appeal.

2. The case involved loans taken by the assessee from Shri Banshilal, Shri Kana Ram, and Shri Kailash Choudhary, totaling Rs. 90 lakhs. The Assessing Officer added these amounts under Sec. 68 of the Act, suspecting non-genuineness of the transactions. However, the CIT(A) found that the assessee had proven the genuineness, identity, and creditworthiness of the creditors through various documents and statements. The CIT(A) concluded that the loans were legitimate and deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer.

3. The Revenue contended that the CIT(A)'s order should be upheld, arguing that the CIT(A) had properly considered all arguments and relevant legal precedents. The Revenue also referenced a recent High Court decision to support their stance. The CIT(A) had considered the remand report and did not accept additional evidence under Rule 46 of the I.T. Rules. The Revenue urged the dismissal of the appeal.

4. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal found that the assessee had adequately established the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditors. The Tribunal noted that the sources of the funds had been explained by the creditors and that the CIT(A) had appropriately called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the legal judgment, highlighting the arguments presented by both parties and the Tribunal's final decision based on the evidence and legal provisions.