2015 (3) TMI 969 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 - explained unsecured loans - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - in the remand proceedings the A.O. himself has accepted that loans taken by Praveen Kumar (i.e. assessee) . appears to be genuine . Thus, the A.O. himself has given a clean chit to the assessee and yet when the ld. CIT(A) deletes the addition in respect of the same, the A.O. is in appeal before us. It is not possible to reconcile these two conflicting stand taken by the A.O. As find that the ld. CIT(A) in a very detailed and analytical order, deleted the impugned addition for good and sufficient reasons. The loans were given from the overdraft bank accounts and no cash deposits were made before issuance of cheques. Identity of the creditors stands proved and the credit worthiness of the creditors is also reasonably established. In view of the fact that the genuineness of the borrowing/credit itself is established, there cannot be any good reason to dispute the same with respect to payment of interest either. As the ld. CIT(A) has rightly observed, genuineness of the unsecured loans under consideration does not remain undisputed in the light of the remand report submitted by the A.O. himself. We uphold the order of ld. CIT(A) and decline to interfere in the same. - Decided in fvaour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition of unsecured loans under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Deletion of interest amount paid on the loans.
3. Dispute over the assessment order between the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

Analysis:

1. The case involved the assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2009-10. The Assessing Officer (AO) raised grievances regarding the deletion of an addition of Rs. 13,50,000 on account of unexplained unsecured loans under section 68 of the Act. The AO contended that the creditworthiness of the loan provider was not proven. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) deleted the addition after a detailed examination of the loans and the lenders. The CIT(A) directed the AO to examine the lenders, and based on the remand report, concluded that the loans were genuine as they were provided from overdraft bank accounts and all necessary details were furnished. The CIT(A) found the loans to be genuine, and the AO's remand report supported this conclusion.

2. Additionally, the AO had disallowed an interest amount of Rs. 1,94,000 on the loans. The CIT(A) considered all facts and submissions, including the remand report, and found that the genuineness of the unsecured loans was established. The loans were found to be legitimate based on the source of funds and the statements provided by the lenders. The CIT(A) held that since the identity and creditworthiness of the lenders were established, the addition made by the AO was unjustified. The CIT(A) also noted that no cash deposits were made before issuing the cheques for the loans, further supporting the genuineness of the transactions.

3. The AO appealed the CIT(A)'s decision, arguing that the loans were not adequately verified. However, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, emphasizing that the loans were genuine, and the lenders' creditworthiness and identity were proven. The Tribunal found no reason to dispute the CIT(A)'s decision based on the detailed analysis provided in the order. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A)'s order was well-reasoned and deserved confirmation, dismissing the AO's appeal.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of unsecured loans and interest amount, as the genuineness of the loans was established through detailed examination and supporting evidence provided during the assessment proceedings.