2014 (1) TMI 1125 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained cash credits - Held that - The appellant had accepted the loans through brokers - The source of loan for the appellant is broker - The appellant submitted the confirmation from broker as well as from the creditors also source as well as source of source also explained - The appellant had discharged the primary onus by filing the relevant details - The assessee has filed copies of discharged promissory notes, copy of account and the confirmation of all the creditors - Ten brokers out of twelve also attended the proceedings before the AO and have confirmed the arranging and giving loans to the assessee - The evidences and material on record were, therefore, sufficient to prove that the assessee has genuinely taken the loans through brokers - The assessee has thus been able to prove that the genuine credits have been obtained in a sum of Rs.45,30,500 - The ld. CIT(A) was, justified in deleting the addition to that extent and interest paid thereon - Decided against Revenue.

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition on account of unexplained cash credits.
2. Deletion of addition on account of interest on loan.
3. Confirmation of addition on account of unexplained cash credits.
4. Condonation of delay in filing the cross objection.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Addition on Account of Unexplained Cash Credits:
The Revenue challenged the deletion of Rs.45,30,500/- added by the AO under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for unexplained cash credits. The AO had observed that the explanation furnished by the assessee was not satisfactory, as the identity of the creditors, their capacity to advance money, and the genuineness of the transactions were not proven. The CIT(A) admitted additional evidence under Rule 46A, which included confirmation letters, promissory notes, and other documents submitted by the assessee during appellate proceedings. The remand report from the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax indicated that despite issuing summons, the brokers did not attend, leaving the genuineness of the loans unverified. However, upon further summons, ten brokers attended and confirmed the transactions. The CIT(A) found that the assessee had discharged the onus of proving the cash credits to the extent of Rs.45,30,500/- through brokers, who confirmed the transactions, provided their income tax returns, and bank statements. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, concluding that the assessee had proven the genuineness of the loans.

2. Deletion of Addition on Account of Interest on Loan:
The AO had disallowed 50% of the interest amounting to Rs.4,27,130/- due to lack of details. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, and the Tribunal upheld the deletion, as the interest was related to the loans which were found genuine.

3. Confirmation of Addition on Account of Unexplained Cash Credits:
The assessee challenged the confirmation of Rs.6,75,000/- as unexplained cash credits. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition because two brokers did not attend the proceedings despite summons, and the permanent account numbers of two creditors were not furnished. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the assessee could not substantiate these credits due to non-production of the brokers and lack of necessary details.

4. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Cross Objection:
The assessee's cross objection was time-barred by two days, which was explained due to illness. The Tribunal accepted the explanation and condoned the delay, finding it reasonable and not abnormal.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed both the departmental appeal and the cross objection of the assessee, finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order. The deletion of Rs.45,30,500/- and interest thereon was upheld, while the confirmation of Rs.6,75,000/- as unexplained cash credits was also upheld.

← Previous Next →