2016 (4) TMI 504 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 - Held that - As find from the order of the ld CIT(A) that as regards to the identity, even permanent account number (PAN) or was balance sheet etc of the assessee were not provided. As regards to genuiness of the transaction, the same was in doubt from the observation of the AO that cash used to be withdrawn after deposit of cheque by the assessee. We find that no documents have been submitted by the assessee in support of the creditworthiness of the creditor. According to us the assessee has failed to discharge its Burdon of proof for requirement of section 68 of the Act regarding the creditor. In view of the facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be provided one more opportunity to discharge its burden of proof in respect of the creditor. Accordingly, we restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding the issue afresh in accordance to law. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purpose.

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Compliance with Section 68 requirements.
3. Applicability of Section 68 to purchases.
4. Year of crediting purchases.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Addition under Section 68
The case involved an appeal against the addition of Rs. 38,55,577 under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer found discrepancies related to undisclosed income and transactions during a search and seizure action. The appellant contested the addition, claiming the cheques were for safety and purchases were genuine. The CIT(A) upheld the addition, leading to the appeal.

Issue 2: Compliance with Section 68 requirements
The appellant argued that the creditor's identity, transaction genuineness, and creditworthiness were established. However, the CIT(A) found insufficient proof, including missing PAN, balance sheet, and doubts on transaction genuineness. The tribunal directed the appellant to provide further evidence to meet Section 68 requirements.

Issue 3: Applicability of Section 68 to purchases
The appellant contended that Section 68 did not apply to the purchases, citing a judgment. The tribunal noted the need for clarification on whether the purchases were deemed bogus and directed the Assessing Officer to reevaluate based on the judgment's principles.

Issue 4: Year of crediting purchases
A dispute arose regarding the year to which the purchases related. The tribunal instructed the Assessing Officer to determine the correct assessment year for the purchases, emphasizing compliance with Section 150(1) of the Act.

In conclusion, the tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, providing the appellant with an opportunity to substantiate the creditor's details and directing a reassessment based on the clarified issues. The decision aimed at ensuring justice and adherence to legal provisions.