2015 (6) TMI 703 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained cash credit taxed u/s.68 - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - We are not in agreement with the argument of learned DR, firstly, that both the assessees have discharged their primary onus as prescribed u/s.68 of IT Act and secondly that the order on which learned CIT(A) had placed reliance stood confirmed by the Respected Co-ordinate Bench in the case of M/s. Mukesh Kumar and Co. 2015 (6) TMI 706 - ITAT AHMEDABAD . We, therefore, hereby confirm the factual as well as legal findings of learned CIT(A) and find no force in the grounds raised by the Revenue in respect of both the Appeals. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Deletion of unexplained cash credit taxed under section 68 of the Income Tax Act.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Deletion of unexplained cash credit taxed under section 68 of the Income Tax Act
- The Appeals by the Revenue challenged the deletion of unexplained cash credit taxed under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The cases of two different Assessees were consolidated due to identical basic facts.
- The learned CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 15 lac in the case of M/s. Shravan Kumar Puranmal Shah (HUF), which was made under section 68 of the IT Act. The appellant had filed written submissions during the appellate proceedings, arguing that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were arbitrary and unwarranted.
- The Assessing Officer had made the addition based on a survey conducted and a statement recorded during the survey, casting doubt on the genuineness of the loan. However, the appellant argued that it had provided confirmation letters, PAN details, and other evidence to prove the genuineness of the loans.
- The appellant contended that the source of the source could not be questioned, citing legal precedents. Additionally, the appellant argued that the deposits were genuine, received through banking channels, with interest paid at market rates and necessary TDS deducted.
- The learned CIT(A) had previously deleted similar additions in other cases based on identical facts. The appellant's representative cited a previous order of the ITAT 'B' Bench, Ahmedabad, where the Revenue's appeal was dismissed and the CIT(A)'s order was confirmed.
- The Tribunal found that the assessees had fulfilled their primary burden under section 68 of the IT Act and upheld the findings of the CIT(A), dismissing the Revenue's grounds of appeal. The Tribunal also noted the confirmation of the CIT(A)'s order by the ITAT in a related case and dismissed the Revenue's Appeals.

This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment, focusing on the deletion of unexplained cash credit taxed under section 68 of the Income Tax Act and the arguments presented by both parties during the proceedings.