2017 (11) TMI 1659 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained cash credit u/s.68/69A - Reopening of assessment - Held that - So far as reopening is concerned found that AO has sufficient reason to belief that income had escaped assessment to the extent of loan amount. Accordingly, ground No.1 is dismissed. From the record as found that to substantiate the loan transaction, assessee had not only submitted loan confirmation but also bank statement to show the receipt of loan as well as repayment of the said loan. As per the document placed on record i.e., loan confirmation, FTR copy, bank statement, balance sheet of the Creditor, found that all the three conditions of identity, genuineness and credit worthiness of loan creditor are fully established. This loan was also repaid through cheque which the AO himself had verified and found the same in order. No merit in the addition so made. - Decided partly in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Reopening of assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act
2. Addition of ?10,00,000 on account of accommodation entry treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68/69A
3. Disallowance of interest paid on the alleged accommodation loan

Reopening of Assessment:
The appeal was filed against the order of CIT(A)-41, Mumbai for A.Y.2007-08 regarding the reopening of assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the IT Act. The assessment was reopened based on information received regarding accommodation entries. The AO treated a loan of ?10,00,000 as unexplained investment u/s 69/69A and disallowed interest paid on the loan. The appellant argued that the reopening was without jurisdiction as it was based on mere suspicion and lacked specific references. The AO's reliance on a person's statement without providing an opportunity for cross-examination was contested.

Addition of Unexplained Cash Credit:
The appellant contested the addition of ?10 lakhs as unexplained cash credit u/s 68/69A. The AO alleged the loan was a result of accommodation entries. The appellant provided evidence including bank statements, confirming the loan's genuineness. The appellant argued that the loan was obtained through legal channels and repaid in subsequent years. The CIT(A) upheld the addition, leading to the appellant's further appeal.

Disallowance of Interest Paid:
The AO disallowed interest paid on the alleged accommodation loan of ?10,00,000, treating it as non-business expenditure. The appellant submitted various documents to prove the loan's legitimacy, including confirmation ledger, FTR copy, and balance sheet of the creditor. The appellant also highlighted the turnover of the creditor company to support the loan's authenticity. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, leading to the appellant's further appeal.

Judgment:
The ITAT Mumbai considered the contentions and evidence presented. The tribunal found that the AO had sufficient reason to believe income had escaped assessment regarding the loan amount. However, upon reviewing the documents provided by the appellant, including loan confirmation, bank statements, and creditor details, the tribunal concluded that the loan's identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness were established. The tribunal noted that the loan was repaid through cheques, further confirming its legitimacy. As a result, the tribunal allowed the appeal in part, overturning the addition made by the AO.