2015 (8) TMI 615 - HC - Income Tax

Cash credit amount assessed under section 68 - whether forms part of the total income cannot be considered as application of income for the purpose of section 11 for the assessment year 2009-10 because the same is not a donation ? - Held that - Quite apart from the fact that the issue raised is a pure question of fact, we find from the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as well as the Assessing Officer that the assessee had not in any manner let in any evidence to show that the amount of ₹ 1 crore received from M/s. India Cements was repaid by further availing of loan from various parties. It is no doubt true that the person who had taken the said loan, expired during the course of the assessment proceedings. Consequently, the names could not be furnished. Nevertheless it is a matter of record that the assessee had not produced any material by way of any resolution passed to avail of such loan to discharge the liability. Thus, in the absence of any material furnished by the assessee, the only other course available to the Assessing Officer was to consider this income as income from other sources. We do not find that the reasoning is faulty or illogical for this court to interfere with the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.- Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of cash credit as application of income for section 11
2. Correctness of Tribunal's interpretation of section 68
3. Justification of Tribunal's rejection of advanced amounts
4. Acceptance of late Mr. Ebenesan's collected amounts
5. Allowance of miscellaneous petition under section 254(2)

Interpretation of Cash Credit as Application of Income for Section 11:
The appellant challenged the Tribunal's decision on the cash credit amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000 assessed under section 68, arguing it should be considered as application of income for section 11. The Tribunal held that since the credit was not a donation, it cannot be treated as application of income. The court upheld this view, emphasizing the need for proper identification and documentation of such credits to avoid being classified as unexplained income under section 68.

Correctness of Tribunal's Interpretation of Section 68:
The appellant questioned the Tribunal's interpretation of section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal's decision was based on the lack of evidence regarding the source of the credits and the absence of material provided by the assessee to justify the transactions. The court agreed with the Tribunal, stating that without proper evidence or documentation, the credits could rightly be treated as unexplained income under section 68.

Justification of Tribunal's Rejection of Advanced Amounts:
The Tribunal's conclusion regarding the advanced amounts by late Mr. Ebenesan was disputed by the appellant. Despite efforts to prove the initial source of the advances, the Tribunal rejected the explanation and asked for the "source of source." The court found the Tribunal's decision justified, especially considering the lack of proper documentation and unresolved discrepancies in the transactions.

Acceptance of Late Mr. Ebenesan's Collected Amounts:
The appellant contested the Tribunal's rejection of the amounts collected by late Mr. Ebenesan, highlighting inconsistencies in the treatment of similar transactions by the Revenue. The court noted that the Tribunal's decision was based on the failure to provide concrete evidence and proper documentation, leading to the classification of the amounts as unexplained income. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision in this regard.

Allowance of Miscellaneous Petition under Section 254(2):
The appellant raised an issue regarding the Tribunal's refusal to allow a miscellaneous petition under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court dismissed this argument, stating that in light of the previous decisions and the lack of new evidence or grounds presented, there were no valid reasons to rehear the appeal. Consequently, the miscellaneous petition was also dismissed, upholding the Tribunal's decision.