2016 (2) TMI 232 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 - Held that - CIT (Appeals) in his order has given a finding that the details of the brokers through whom the shops were sold or agreed to be sold was not furnished. The assessee has further failed to provide any evidence to prove the source of cash advances received from the alleged buyers. The amount of compensation which is said to be source of funds is much less than the amount of advances received or the agreement value of the shops. All the transactions in respect of advances for booking shops are in cash. The ld. AR has not controverted any of the above findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The documents placed on record does not inspire confidence to accept the explanation furnished by the assessee to substantiate the source of advances of ₹ 67,50,000/-. We find the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) well reasoned and detailed on the issue. - Decided against assessee Addition being notional interest on advances given during the course of business - Held that - Before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the assessee never raised any plea that the assessee was having sufficient own interest free funds for advancing interest free loans. This plea of sufficient funds was raised by the assessee for the first time before the Tribunal. However, the assessee has not substantiated its plea from the records. In the absence of any such evidence, the reliance on the decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (2009 (1) TMI 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) is misplaced. The assessee could neither show availability of sufficient interest free funds for advancing such loans nor the assessee has been able to show that loans have been given for business purposes. Therefore, in view of the facts of the case, we do not find any merit in the contentions of the ld. AR of the assessee. - Decided against assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition of Rs. 67,50,000 as unexplained advances u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Addition of Rs. 2,28,345 on account of notional interest on advances given during the course of business.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Addition of Rs. 67,50,000 as unexplained advances u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The case involved a partnership firm engaged in Builders and Developers business. The Assessing Officer noted unexplained advances of Rs. 67,50,000 during the assessment year 2009-10. The firm failed to substantiate these advances, leading to the addition under section 68 of the Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) rejected the explanations provided by the firm, emphasizing the lack of proper documentation and verification. The firm claimed the advances were received against property sales, but failed to prove the transactions' genuineness. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, citing insufficient evidence and lack of credibility in the documents presented.

Issue 2: Addition of Rs. 2,28,345 as notional interest on advances:
The firm had given interest-free loans to certain individuals while borrowing from a bank at 15%. The Assessing Officer added notional interest of Rs. 3,77,130 on these loans, which the Commissioner partially reduced. The firm argued against the concept of notional interest under the Income Tax Act and claimed to have used non-interest bearing funds for the loans. However, the Tribunal found the firm's explanations lacking, as it couldn't demonstrate the availability of interest-free funds or the loans' business purpose. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating the firm failed to provide sufficient evidence to support its claims.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding the unexplained advances and notional interest, respectively. The firm's lack of credible documentation and failure to substantiate transactions led to the dismissal of the appeal.