2016 (4) TMI 509 - AT - Income Tax

Addition on account of unsecured loans - Held that - CIT(A) has deleted the said addition by holding that, the said loan was genuine and assessee has prima facie discharged its onus. If the assessee has satisfactorily explained the nature and source of Credit by adducing prima facie all the necessary evidence then onus of the assessee gets discharged and onus shift upon the AO to show / prove that such an explanation is not correct. In absence of any enquiry conducted by the AO even when specific mandate was given by the CIT(A) in the remand proceedings, the Department now cannot plead that the onus cast upon the assessee has not been discharged. None of the evidences filed has been rebutted and accordingly, we do not find any substance in the impugned ground raised by the revenue - Decided in favour of assessee Addition on account advances received from customers which has been treated as unexplained cash credit - Held that - In the case of the three parties, the amount was appearing as an opening balance as on 01.04.2008 in the accounts of the assessee and hence the same cannot be treated as unexplained credit in the relevant financial year to be added under section 68. Apart from that, the assessee had filed confirmation letter and confirmation of account from these parties along with the PAN, copy of Audited Balancesheet and Profit & Loss account and acknowledgement of return. Once these documents were submitted and remanded to the AO for his comment and examination, then it cannot be held that the nature of advance received from the customers can be treated as unexplained credits, especially when assessee had a regular business activity and dealing with these parties. In absence of any enquiry made by the AO and any adverse material brought on record, we do not find any reason to doubt the genuineness of the credit and accordingly, the finding given by CIT(A) for deleting the addition is upheld. The AO, when was required to look and examine these evidence, had simply chosen to ignore and raise technical objections. Moreover, the evidences furnished merely corroborates the explanation and evidences filed before the AO. - Decided in favour of assessee Addition in respect of capital introduced by the partners - Held that - The AO instead of verifying the evidences and income-tax records of the partners has chosen to give technical objections. The primary onus of the assessee has been duly discharged once the assessee has filed the confirmation from the partners along with their audited Balance-sheet and income-tax returns. Once, these evidences proving the source of their income and genuineness of the transaction have not been rebutted then without any adverse material on record, the amount received in the form of capital introduction by the partners cannot be doubted. Accordingly, finding given by the CIT(A) on this score is also affirmed.- Decided in favour of assessee Addition on additional cost of material consumed - Held that - Addition itself is unsustainable especially when no defect has been pointed out either in purchase bills or purchase rates of raw materials consumed or factor of foreign exchange rates and without there being any adverse material coming on record. Hence such an addition as sustained by the CIT(A) is set aside and ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. - Decided in favour of assessee

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition on account of unsecured loans.
2. Deletion of addition on account of advances received from customers.
3. Deletion of addition in respect of capital introduced by partners.
4. Addition made to the income of the assessee in respect of "additional cost of material consumed".

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of addition on account of unsecured loans:
The Assessing Officer (AO) noted that the assessee had shown receiving fresh loans totaling Rs. 57,50,000/- from three parties but failed to furnish complete requisite details, leading to the confirmation of the unsecured loan as income. The CIT(A) admitted additional evidences submitted by the assessee, including loan confirmations, bank statements, and income-tax returns of the loan creditors. The AO did not provide any adverse comments on these evidences during the remand proceedings. Consequently, the CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting that the loans appeared genuine and the AO had not conducted necessary enquiries. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing sufficient evidence, and the AO failed to rebut these evidences.

2. Deletion of addition on account of advances received from customers:
The AO treated advances from customers totaling Rs. 66,28,827/- as unexplained cash credits due to insufficient documentation. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting that the assessee had provided confirmation letters, PAN details, and other relevant documents for these advances. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, highlighting that the advances were received in the normal course of business, and the AO failed to conduct necessary enquiries or provide adverse material against the evidences submitted by the assessee.

3. Deletion of addition in respect of capital introduced by partners:
The AO added Rs. 18,50,000/- introduced by the partners as unexplained credits due to the assessee's failure to provide necessary details. The CIT(A) deleted the addition after the assessee submitted bank statements, audited financial statements, and income-tax returns of the partners. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing confirmation from the partners and their financial records, and the AO did not rebut these evidences.

4. Addition made to the income of the assessee in respect of "additional cost of material consumed":
The AO added Rs. 71,38,571/- to the income, citing an unjustified rise in the cost of material consumed. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition, stating that the reasons for the increased cost were not properly explained. The Tribunal, however, set aside the addition, noting that no defects were found in the purchase bills, books of accounts, or excise registers. The Tribunal emphasized that the increase in cost was due to foreign exchange fluctuations and higher rates per unit of raw material, which were not rebutted by the AO or CIT(A).

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal and allowed the assessee's appeal, concluding that the additions made by the AO were not justified based on the evidences provided and the lack of necessary enquiries by the AO. The Tribunal's decision was pronounced in the open court on 7th March, 2016.

← Previous Next →