2012 (8) TMI 800 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 - unsecured loans - assessee contended the same to share application money received during the last year and not during the year under consideration and transferred to the head unsecured loan by passing necessary journal entries during the year - Held that - It is found that complete details of these share applicants such as name, address and ledger account showing receipt of application money through Banking channels were submitted before the AO to show the identity and genuineness of the transaction. Also, in subsequent AY 2008-09, assessee company has duly issued share certificate to all these share applicants. Confirmations of share applicants and share certificates also furnished. In view of aforesaid and as no new loans were taken during the year, the AO was not justified in making addition u/s 68 - Decided in favor of assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Deletion of addition of Rs. 45 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer u/s 68 in respect of unexplained cash credit in the Bank account.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A)-II, Bhopal, for the 2007-08 assessment year, challenging the deletion of the addition of Rs. 45 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 regarding unexplained cash credit in the Bank account. The Assessing Officer had added Rs. 45 lakhs under section 68, stating that the assessee failed to provide essential aspects of the loan transactions, including identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the lenders. However, the CIT(A) deleted the addition after considering the submissions and evidence presented by the appellant.

The CIT(A) observed that the amount in question was transferred from share capital account to the loan account by way of a journal entry during the relevant assessment year. The appellant provided various details to the Assessing Officer, including power of attorney, audited financial statements, bank statements, details of debtors and creditors, list of directors, and share capital information. The CIT(A) noted that the credit in the unsecured loan account was due to the transfer of funds from share application money received in earlier years, and it did not represent a fresh introduction of money during the relevant assessment year. The CIT(A) emphasized that the Assessing Officer did not provide any evidence that the amount in question was undisclosed income, and therefore, the addition under section 68 was unjustified.

Upon further review, the Appellate Tribunal found that no new unsecured loan was taken by the assessee during the year under consideration; instead, it was the balance of share application money transferred to the unsecured loan account through journal entries. The Tribunal verified the details provided by the assessee, including the identity and genuineness of the share applicants, as well as the confirmation of transactions through banking channels. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer's observations and the explanations provided by the assessee indicated that no new loans were taken during the year, and the addition under section 68 was unwarranted. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition, as the appellant had adequately explained the accounting entries and provided necessary details and confirmations related to share application money received in the previous assessment year.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s order to delete the addition of Rs. 45 lakhs under section 68, as the appellant had satisfactorily demonstrated the source and nature of the funds transferred from share application money to the unsecured loan account during the relevant assessment year.