2014 (1) TMI 1133 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained cash credits Held that - The assessee discharged its initial onus to prove identity, genuineness and credit worthiness with respect to unsecured loan by filing confirmation of the party, bank statement of the party and ledger account - The Assessing Officer has disregarded the same and merely relied on the report of the Investigation Wing and statement of Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, Director of M/s Galaxy Mines & Stones Pvt. Ltd. recorded by Investigation Wing - None of the above evidences was confronted to the assessee for rebuttal in respect of specific request made by letter filed during assessment proceedings - No inquiries were conducted by the Assessing Officer for verifying the above mentioned evidences filed by the assessee - Following Anmol Colour India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO 2008 (6) TMI 249 - ITAT JAIPUR-A - Where the evidences filed by the assessee were to be examined by the Assessing Officer, it would be in the interest of justice to restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer The issue was restored for fresh adjudication.

Summary

Issues:
1. Sustenance of addition of Rs.1.70 Crores by CIT (Appeals) in respect of alleged unexplained cash credits on account of unsecured loan.
2. Sustenance of addition of Rs.20.00 Lac in respect of alleged unsubstantiated cash credits.
3. Part sustenance of disallowance of Rs.3,12,309/- on account of alleged non-production of vouchers/bills of various expenses.

Analysis:
1. The appeal involved challenging the additions made by the Assessing Officer regarding unexplained cash credits. The appellant received entries worth Rs.1,70,00,000 from a company, and loans from individuals. The Assessing Officer added these amounts under section 68 of the IT Act due to failure in proving the genuineness, creditworthiness, and identity of the transactions. The appellant claimed expenses during the year, but failed to produce details and vouchers, resulting in disallowance of a portion of the expenses. The appellant argued that initial onus to prove identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness was discharged by providing relevant documents, which were disregarded by the Assessing Officer. The appellant requested the matter to be remanded back for proper examination of evidence.

2. The appellant contested the addition of Rs.1.70 Crores and Rs.20.00 Lac as unexplained cash credits from a company and an individual respectively. The appellant provided documentation such as bank statements, ledger accounts, and confirmations to support the transactions. However, the Assessing Officer relied on external reports and statements without confronting the evidence to the appellant for rebuttal. The appellant highlighted discrepancies in the assessment process and lack of inquiries conducted by the Assessing Officer, emphasizing the need for a fair examination of the evidence presented.

3. The appellant also challenged the disallowance of expenses due to non-production of vouchers and bills. The appellant argued that explanations and evidence were provided to address the concerns raised by the Assessing Officer, but were disregarded. The appellant cited precedents where matters requiring examination of evidence were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication. The Senior D.R. agreed that the issue should be sent back for reconsideration based on the facts and circumstances presented.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal set aside the issues to be reconsidered by the Assessing Officer in accordance with the law. The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes, emphasizing the need for a fair and thorough examination of the evidence provided during the assessment process.