9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 1473 - AT - Income TaxAddition of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 - identity, creditworthiness or genuineness of transaction with BMPL - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT - CIT(A) has passed a reasoned order by duly considering the facts surrounding the issue and also by applying the principles laid down in various decisions relied upon by him. I notice that the Ld CIT(A) has taken note of the fact that the transactions carried on by M/s BMPL were found to be genuine in its hand. In the instant case, the AO has made the impugned addition only on the reasoning that M/s BMPL was giving only accommodation loan entries. Since the transactions carried on by M/s BMPL were found to be genuine, the reasoning given by the AO fails. Accordingly CIT(A) has deleted the addition on proper reasoning and hence no reason to interfere with the order passed by him on this issue. - Decided against revenue
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition of ?41 lakhs relating to unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Deletion of Addition of ?41 Lakhs Relating to Unexplained Cash Credit Background: The Revenue filed an appeal against the order dated 29.9.2016 by CIT(A)-8, Mumbai, concerning the assessment year 2008-09. The Assessing Officer (AO) had added ?41 lakhs as unexplained cash credit, alleging that the assessee was a beneficiary of accommodation loan entries from M/s. Basant Marketing Pvt. Limited (BMPL). The CIT(A) deleted this addition, leading to the Revenue's appeal. Proceedings and Observations: - The AO reopened the assessment based on information that the assessee received accommodation loan entries from BMPL, adding ?41 lakhs as unexplained cash credit. - The CIT(A) observed that the assessee had discharged the initial burden by providing necessary documents, including PAN details, confirmation, balance sheet, copies of Income Tax returns, and bank statements of BMPL. - The CIT(A) noted that the transactions by BMPL were not found to be fake or bogus in the order passed for A.Y. 2011-12, and the Revenue had accepted this order. - Similar additions made in the case of M/s. Watermarks Systems (India) Pvt. Limited for A.Y. 2008-09 were deleted by the CIT(A). Legal Principles Applied: - Section 68 of the Income Tax Act requires the assessee to prove the identity of the creditor, genuineness of the transaction, and creditworthiness of the creditor. - The CIT(A) cited multiple judicial precedents, including: - CIT v. P. Mohanakala: Proper, reasonable, and acceptable explanation is required for sums credited in the books. - CIT vs Daulat Ram Rawat Mull: The assessee is not required to prove the source of the source. - CIT v. Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd.: Share application money from alleged bogus shareholders cannot be regarded as undisclosed income if the names are provided to the AO. - CIT v. Orissa Corpn. (P.) Ltd.: The Revenue must pursue the matter further if creditors are income-tax assessees. Conclusion: - The CIT(A) concluded that the identity of BMPL was established beyond doubt, and BMPL had sufficient funds, reflecting its creditworthiness. - The AO did not provide any evidence to dispute the genuineness of the transactions. - The CIT(A) noted that the Department had accepted the genuineness of BMPL's transactions in previous assessments. - The CIT(A) deleted the addition of ?41 lakhs, finding no merit in the AO's action, which was based on conjectures and surmises rather than concrete evidence. Tribunal's Decision: - The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that the CIT(A) had passed a reasoned order by duly considering the facts and applying the principles laid down in various judicial decisions. - The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order, as the transactions by BMPL were found to be genuine, and the AO's reasoning failed. - The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, and the order was pronounced on 17.10.2017. Outcome: The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the deletion of the addition of ?41 lakhs as unexplained cash credit was upheld.
|
