2015 (12) TMI 1751 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained cash credit u/s 68 - discharge of onus - Held that - The assessee has received the loan of ₹ 15 lakhs from Smt. Purnima Tiwari. She was assessed to tax since 1987-88. She has given confirmation letter. She has PAN and also filed income tax returns. The computation of income, capital account and balance sheet were also submitted. The assessee has also submitted copy of her bank account fromwhere the assessee received the amount. The source of source was also explained. The assessee has paid interest and deducted TDS which is duly reflected in Form 26AS. The depositor is engaged in the business since long. The assessee also requested the Assessing Officer to issue summons to depositor but he did not act on the request of the assessee. All these facts cumulatively show that the assessee was able to discharge the onus placed upon it in terms of section 68 - Decided against revenue Addition made on account of receipts not recorded in the books of accounts - Held that - CIT(A) has rightly granted part relief to the assessee as both service tax and escort charges were shown separately in the profit and loss account on net basis. The learned DR failed to controvert the findings of the learned CIT(A). We, therefore, sustain the same. Addition on account of disallowance out of certain expenses on the basis of discrepancies found therein - Held that - CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee on the ground that the vouchers prepared by computers and hand-writing and the entries made therein were narrative. The learned DR failed to controvert the findings of the learned CIT(A) with any positive evidence contrary to that. Considering all these facts, we sustain the order of the learned CIT(A) - Revenue appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Addition of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Deletion of addition made on account of receipts not recorded in the books of accounts.
3. Disallowance of certain expenses on the basis of discrepancies found therein.

Analysis:

1. Addition of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act:
The case involved an appeal regarding the addition of unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee, a company engaged in the business of handling transportation, lifting, and placing mobile towers, contested the addition of Rs. 15,49,118 made by the Assessing Officer. The primary issue was the inability to prove the creditworthiness of the lender, Mrs. Purnima Tiwari. However, the assessee provided substantial evidence to establish the identity, genuineness of the transaction, and creditworthiness of Mrs. Tiwari. This evidence included documents like confirmation, PAN card, ITR, bank statements, and details of the creditor's business and financial standing. The Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged its burden under section 68 of the Act by proving the legitimacy of the transaction and the creditor's capacity to lend. Consequently, the addition was deemed unjustified, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.

2. Deletion of addition made on account of receipts not recorded in the books of accounts:
In this issue, the revenue's appeal concerned the deletion of an addition of Rs. 50,58,257 made for receipts not recorded in the books of accounts. The Assessing Officer had added the difference between the total receipts shown in the profit & loss account and the receipts as per Form 26AS. However, the CIT(A) partially allowed the appeal by considering the accounting principles laid down by ICAI and the details provided by the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision as the service tax and escort charges were shown separately in the profit and loss account, justifying the partial relief granted to the assessee.

3. Disallowance of certain expenses on the basis of discrepancies found therein:
Regarding the disallowance of expenses on the basis of discrepancies found, the CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee for expenses related to cartage & coolie expenses and hosting & handling charges. The Assessing Officer had disallowed a percentage of these expenses citing cash transactions and handwritten vouchers. However, the CIT(A) found that the vouchers were prepared by computers and in various handwriting styles, with detailed transaction information. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s findings, noting that the adhoc disallowance was unjustified as the vouchers were detailed and verified, leading to the deletion of the disallowance. The revenue's appeal on this issue was dismissed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment addressed and resolved the issues raised by both the assessee and the revenue, providing detailed reasoning for each decision and upholding the principles of the Income Tax Act.