2015 (2) TMI 546 - AT - Income Tax

Unaccounted cash credit - share call advance money and unsecured loans from two creditor companies - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - The assessee has furnished various evidences to establish the identity of the creditor companies as extracted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in his order. We also find that directors were appeared before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) directed them to file bank details of which concerns they are directors. The information required by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) were also furnished. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on examining all these details concluded that evidences conclusively proved that two creditor companies M/s. Top Grain Vyapar (P) Ltd. and M/s. Umang Commo Trade P. Ltd. do exist at the addresses given by them and therefore deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer in respect of share call advance money and unsecured loans with the said creditor companies. None of the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) were rebutted with any evidence by the Revenue. Thus uphold the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in deleting the addition and reject the grounds raised by the Revenue. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Opportunity for the Assessing Officer to call for a remand report.
2. Cross-examination of the creditor companies.
3. Deletion of addition made by the Assessing Officer regarding share application money and unsecured loan creditors.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Opportunity for the Assessing Officer to Call for a Remand Report:
The Revenue contended that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] erred in not giving an opportunity to the Assessing Officer (AO) by calling for a remand report to establish the genuineness, creditworthiness, and identity of the creditor company. The Departmental Representative argued that the CIT(A) should have called for a remand report based on the evidences furnished by the assessee. However, the counsel for the assessee countered that no new material was filed before the CIT(A) that was not already in possession of the AO. The CIT(A) found that there was a lack of enquiry by the AO despite having sufficient materials.

2. Cross-Examination of the Creditor Companies:
The Revenue also raised the issue of the CIT(A) failing to cross-examine the creditor companies, namely M/s. Top Grain Vyapar (P) Ltd. and M/s. Umang Commo Trade (P) Ltd., and their directors. The AO had added the share application money and unsecured loan creditors to the income of the assessee on the grounds that the identity and genuineness of the creditor companies were not established. The AO had issued letters and summons to the directors of the creditor companies, but the responses were deemed unsatisfactory. The CIT(A), however, considered the submissions and evidences provided by the assessee, including assessment orders, bank statements, and communications with the Reserve Bank of India, to conclude that the creditor companies were identified and the transactions were genuine.

3. Deletion of Addition Made by the Assessing Officer:
The AO made additions of Rs. 2,50,00,000/- for share application money and Rs. 16,14,923/- for unsecured loan creditors, stating that the transactions were not genuine. The CIT(A) deleted these additions after examining various evidences provided by the assessee, such as the registration of the companies with the Registrar of Companies, PAN details, bank statements, and communications from the RBI. The CIT(A) found that the AO had sufficient materials but failed to conduct a proper enquiry. The CIT(A) verified the existence of the creditor companies and their directors, confirming their addresses and transactions through banking channels. The CIT(A) concluded that the creditor companies were not fictitious and the transactions were genuine, thus directing the AO to delete the additions.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the additions made by the AO concerning share application money and unsecured loans. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the identity and genuineness of the creditor companies. The Tribunal noted that the AO had failed to conduct a thorough enquiry despite having all relevant information. Consequently, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, and the cross-objection filed by the assessee was deemed infructuous and also dismissed.

(Order pronounced in the open court on Friday, the 19.12.2014 at Chennai)

← Previous Next →