2015 (4) TMI 1306 - HC - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 - genuineness of the transactions alleged to have been the basis for the credits claimed had not been proved - Admission of additional evidence - HELD THAT - It is an established matter of record that in appellate proceedings before the CIT (A), the assessee had produced copies of the balance sheets, profit and loss statements and bank accounts pertaining to the concerned parties, i.e., M/s Alter Investments Pvt. Ltd. M/s Illac Investments Pvt. Ltd. This was in addition to the extracts of its own ledger records to say that there was regularity in the transaction between those parties and consequently all these credits were through normal banking transactions. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the CIT (A) could not have proceeded to adjudicate on the rights of the parties and return the findings that he did on the basis of the materials which existed. Whilst, the assessee may be within its rights in saying that additions under Section 68 were not sustainable, at least, the CIT (A) should have enquired into the materials placed on the record and should have duly considered them. In the light of the above findings, the impugned order of the ITAT and CIT (A) are set aside. Additional documents produced by the assessee are directed to be taken on the record and duly considered.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against ITAT order setting aside additions in respect of two creditors.
2. Dispute over the genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of parties.
3. Failure of CIT (A) to consider additional evidence filed under Rule 46 (A).
4. Arguments regarding the sufficiency of evidence and compliance with Section 68.

Analysis:
1. The Revenue appealed against the ITAT order setting aside additions related to two creditors of the assessee. The AO had added amounts concerning M/s Gateway Leasing Pvt. Ltd., M/s Illac Investments Pvt. Ltd., and Alter Investments Pvt. Ltd. due to lack of material or insufficient disclosure. The CIT (A) did not address the application for additional evidence under Rule 46 (A) but dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The ITAT upheld the CIT (A)'s findings, leading to the Revenue's appeal.

2. The Revenue contended that the genuineness of transactions underlying the credits was not proven, emphasizing that the assessee failed to establish the creditworthiness of the parties adequately. The Revenue argued that reliance on PAN details and ITR copies was insufficient to discharge the initial onus under Section 68. In contrast, the assessee maintained that relevant details and party identities were on record, citing acceptance of credits from the same ledger for other creditors. The CIT (A) and ITAT were criticized for allegedly overlooking established legal principles.

3. The failure of the CIT (A) to consider the additional evidence submitted under Rule 46 (A) was highlighted. The assessee had produced balance sheets, profit and loss statements, and bank accounts of the concerned parties, along with ledger extracts. The court noted that these materials demonstrated regular transactions through normal banking channels. The judgment emphasized that the CIT (A) should have examined the evidence before returning findings, leading to the setting aside of the ITAT and CIT (A) orders.

4. The court concluded that the Revenue's grievance regarding the lack of support for creditworthiness and transaction genuineness was not conclusive. While the assessee argued against the sustainability of additions under Section 68, the court found that the CIT (A) should have considered the materials presented. The judgment directed the inclusion of additional documents and reserved the parties' rights to present their contentions. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the previous orders and ordering a reevaluation based on the additional evidence provided.