9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (5) TMI 579 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained loans - non production of creditors after lapse of more than 10 years - Held that - Despite opportunities afforded to the assessee, no evidence was placed. Initially, the assessee sought adjournment before the Assessing Officer on the ground that the two persons have gone out of station and they would be back in the first week of November. The request for adjournment was acceded to by the Assessing Officer, but despite affording opportunities, the assessee could not produce these creditors. As per direction of the Tribunal, the assessee was required to prove the capacity of the creditors to advance money, but the assessee could not produce the bank statement or other evidence to prove the financial creditworthiness. Since the assessee could not discharge its onus to prove all the ingredients i.e. identity of the creditors and capacity of the creditors to advance the money and genuineness of the transaction, the Assessing Officer has treated the deposit as unexplained and made addition of the same. Also before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee could not improve his case and for want of creditworthiness of the depositors, the addition was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). - Decided against assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Sustaining the addition of unexplained loans. 2. Applicability of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Validity of the assessment under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Admission of additional grounds in the second round of appeal. Detailed Analysis: 1. Sustaining the Addition of Unexplained Loans: The assessee contested the addition of Rs. 10 lakhs (Rs. 5 lakhs each from two individuals) made by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) on the grounds of unexplained loans. The assessee argued that these amounts were received as advances for booking flats, which were later refunded upon cancellation. Despite this, the A.O. and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] upheld the addition due to the non-production of creditors and lack of evidence regarding their financial capacity. 2. Applicability of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The assessee claimed that Section 68, which deals with unexplained cash credits, was not applicable as the amounts were trading receipts. However, the Tribunal emphasized that the assessee must prove the identity of the creditor, the capacity to advance money, and the genuineness of the transaction. The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to establish these elements, leading to the confirmation of the addition. 3. Validity of the Assessment under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The assessee raised an additional ground challenging the validity of the assessment under Section 153C, arguing that the A.O. did not record proper satisfaction before issuing the notice. The Tribunal noted that this ground was not raised in the first round of appeal and that the scope of the second round was limited to the issue of unexplained deposits. The Tribunal referred to the jurisdictional High Court's ruling that satisfaction under Section 153C is an administrative order and does not require an opportunity of hearing. 4. Admission of Additional Grounds in the Second Round of Appeal: The Tribunal deliberated on whether new legal grounds could be admitted in the second round of appeal. It concluded that additional grounds could be admitted in the first round where the appellate authorities have broad discretion. However, in the second round, where the scope is limited to specific issues remanded by the Tribunal, new grounds cannot be introduced. Consequently, the Tribunal declined to admit the additional ground regarding the validity of the assessment under Section 153C. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, confirming the addition of Rs. 10 lakhs as unexplained deposits. It held that the assessee failed to prove the identity, capacity, and genuineness of the creditors. The Tribunal also rejected the additional ground challenging the validity of the assessment under Section 153C, emphasizing the limited scope of the second round of appeal.
|
