2016 (8) TMI 458 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 - undisclosed cash credits and investments - Held that - Most of the withdrawals from the Bank of Baroda and other banks were held to be available for investment in the land and accordingly the deposits made in Vijaya Bank were accepted by the Ld. CIT(A). With regard to hand loans taken from 14 persons the assessee has not even given PAN etc. and in the absence of maintenance of books of account it was difficult for the tax authorities to crossverify the genuineness of the loans. Even before us no material whatsoever was filed by the assessee to prove the availability of the loan amounts from 14 parties. We are therefore of the view that the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition to the extent of the amount referable to the alleged loans taken from 14 parties. However personal savings to the tune of 13, 000 having regard to the value of transactions carried out by the assessee it could not have been disputed by the Ld. CIT(A). Similarly separate addition of 3, 84, 400 is also not warranted since it is a running account having cash deposits. No doubt there are some instances which prove that some of the amounts were utilised for monthly credit card bills or repayment of loans but in the absence of any proof that assessee utilised the entire income earned from the business only for payment towards credit cards bills etc. it is not a fit case for making separate addition of 3, 84, 400. As regards the unexplained investment in the land the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition of 1, 35, 644 for which the assessee could not furnish any evidence. Under these circumstances we are of the view that the addition of 1, 35, 644 sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is in accordance with law. In short the cash loans taken from 14 persons were rightly added by the A.O. and confirmed by the CIT(A).

Summary

Issues: Unexplained credits under section 68 and unexplained investment

Unexplained Credits under Section 68:
The case involved challenges against additions made by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) under section 68 of the Act, which were sustained by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT(A)). The A.O. identified cash deposits in the Vijaya Bank account and requested the assessee to explain the sources of these deposits, including investments in land. The A.O. raised concerns about the lack of proper explanations for the sources of funds, particularly related to loans and cash deposits. The A.O. concluded that certain amounts were unexplained credits under section 68, leading to additions in the total income calculation.

Unexplained Investment:
Regarding unexplained investments, the A.O. scrutinized the purchase of land by the assessee and noted discrepancies in the claimed sources of funds. The A.O. found inconsistencies in the utilization of loans from financial institutions and relatives for the land purchase, resulting in the identification of a deficit in the source of funds for the investment. Consequently, a specific amount was added to the total income as an unexplained investment.

Analysis and Decision:
The CIT(A) reviewed the contentions of the assessee, particularly regarding the cash deposits and investments. The CIT(A) observed a lack of credible evidence linking cash withdrawals to specific investments, highlighting discrepancies in the explanations provided by the assessee. The CIT(A) upheld the additions made by the A.O., emphasizing the need for verifiable documentation and audit trails to substantiate claims of fund sources and investments.

Tribunal's Decision:
Upon further appeal, the Tribunal considered the submissions from both sides. The Tribunal acknowledged the challenges in verifying the genuineness of loans and the utilization of funds for various transactions. While supporting the CIT(A)'s decision on certain aspects, the Tribunal also made adjustments, notably regarding personal savings and running cash accounts. The Tribunal upheld the addition related to unexplained investments in land, emphasizing the lack of evidence provided by the assessee to justify the source of funds. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, affirming certain additions while modifying others based on the evidence and explanations presented.

Conclusion:
The judgment addressed issues of unexplained credits under section 68 and unexplained investments, highlighting the importance of substantiating fund sources and investments with verifiable documentation. The decision balanced the need for thorough verification with the requirement for clear evidence to support financial transactions, resulting in adjustments to the total income calculations based on the credibility of explanations provided.