2016 (5) TMI 1086 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained cash credit u/s 68 - Held that - It is observed that when the affidavit was filed by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) then same becomes an additional evidence and thus the ld. CIT(A) should have either accepted or rejected the same. It is emerges from the record that the assessee has been taking inconsistent plea i.e. first claiming the creditor to be dead and then claiming the creditor that she is residing in South Africa. Similarly, in the case of one Shri Mohan Lal Gupta, there seems to be various discrepancies which needs to be clarified. Thus by considering the facts and peculiar circumstances of the case and also in the interest of justice the issue of cash credit is set aside and restored back to the file of the AO to decide it afresh by providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Addition of unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Rejection of books of account under Section 145(3).
3. Trading addition to the declared results.

Issue 1: Addition of Unexplained Cash Credits under Section 68:
The appellant took loans from Smt. Maya Devi and Shri Mohan Lal Gupta, totaling ?7,00,000. Regarding Smt. Maya Devi's loan, the appellant failed to prove her creditworthiness and genuineness of the loan as she was not assessed in India and lacked income details. The Tribunal held that the mere filing of bank statements was insufficient to establish creditworthiness. Thus, the ?5,00,000 loan from Smt. Maya Devi was added to the appellant's income. Similarly, for Shri Mohan Lal Gupta's loan, discrepancies in cash deposits and lack of interest income proof led to the addition of ?2,00,000. The Tribunal found the transactions suspicious and upheld the AO's decision to add the amounts under Section 68.

Issue 2: Rejection of Books of Account under Section 145(3):
The AO rejected the appellant's books of account due to incomplete stock details and unverified transactions. The Tribunal noted deficiencies in maintaining records and unconfirmed credits, leading to the rejection under Section 145(3). The appellant's explanations were deemed unsatisfactory, and the trading addition was made based on discrepancies in the accounting practices. The Tribunal upheld the rejection of books and the subsequent trading addition.

Issue 3: Trading Addition to Declared Results:
The appellant's trading results were subject to scrutiny due to incomplete stock records and unverified transactions. The AO found discrepancies in the accounting practices, including unconfirmed credits and incomplete details. The Tribunal agreed with the AO's observations, leading to the rejection of the books of account and the trading addition. The appellant's contentions were considered insufficient, and the Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding the trading addition.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, setting aside the issue of cash credits for reassessment by the AO. The rejection of books of account and the trading addition were upheld. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of proving creditworthiness and genuineness in loan transactions, highlighting the need for accurate record-keeping and compliance with tax provisions.