2015 (2) TMI 978 - AT - Income Tax

Unaccounted cash credits - unsecured loans - AO noted that assessee has shown new unsecured loans amounting to ₹ 30,56,500 out of which loans amounting to ₹ 19,56,000 were introduced from persons specified under section 40A(2)(b) - CIT(A)deleted part addition - Held that - If the Assessing Officer has suspicion that commodity profit was not genuine in the hands of various family members, the same could have been added in their assessments by reopening the same but the same cannot be assessed in the hands of the assessee because such persons have confirmed the transactions of loans and has filed the relevant papers. Therefore, in our opinion the view taken in the case of Seva Ram v. ITO (2015 (2) TMI 935 - ITAT CHANDIGARH) is squarely applicable in this case also and we decide the issue in favour of the assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Addition under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act for loans received from creditors.
2. Addition for low household withdrawals.
3. Consideration of evidence and submissions during the hearing.
4. Validity of creditors' confirmation and their financial documents.
5. Assessment of the creditors' income from trading in commodities.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act for loans received from creditors:
The assessee appealed against the addition of Rs. 15,96,000 made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act. The AO noted that the assessee had shown new unsecured loans amounting to Rs. 30,56,500, out of which Rs. 19,56,000 were from persons specified under Section 40A(2)(b). The AO questioned the source of these loans, which were claimed to be profits from trading and commodity business, and disallowed Rs. 15,96,000, suspecting it to be the assessee's own income channeled through different names.

2. Addition for low household withdrawals:
The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) confirmed the AO's addition of Rs. 3,00,000 for low household withdrawals. However, this ground was not pressed by the assessee during the appeal and was dismissed as not pressed.

3. Consideration of evidence and submissions during the hearing:
The assessee argued that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition without properly considering the evidence and submissions made during the hearing. The assessee had provided confirmation from creditors, their Permanent Account Numbers (PAN), copies of Income-tax returns, and bank statements.

4. Validity of creditors' confirmation and their financial documents:
The assessee contended that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) failed to consider that M/s. Satyam Commodities, from whom the creditors earned income, was a regular Income-tax assessee. The AO had accepted the books of account and the nature of the business of M/s. Satyam Commodities as genuine during the relevant assessment year.

5. Assessment of the creditors' income from trading in commodities:
The AO observed that M/s. Satyam Commodities was not a member of the stock exchange, raising doubts about the legitimacy of the income from trading in commodities. The assessee provided various documents and statements recorded by the AO to prove the genuineness of the loans. The Tribunal referenced a similar case, Shri Seva Ram v. ITO, where the addition was deleted under similar circumstances.

Tribunal's Findings:
The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and found that the assessee had discharged the burden under Section 68 by providing the necessary documents to prove the identity, genuineness of the transaction, and capacity of the creditors. The Tribunal noted that if the AO had doubts about the commodity profits, the assessments of the creditors should have been scrutinized, not the assessee's. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO did not find the commodity transactions to be bogus and that the loans were supported by confirmations and financial documents.

The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. P. Mohanakala, highlighting that the explanation provided by the assessee must be considered based on the facts and circumstances of the case. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee had satisfactorily explained the loans, and the addition under Section 68 was not justified.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, deleting the addition of Rs. 15,96,000 under Section 68, and upheld the dismissal of the addition for low household withdrawals as not pressed. The decision was pronounced in the open court on May 29, 2014.

← Previous Next →