2016 (8) TMI 1007 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 - Held that - The addition made on account of unsecured loans from loan creditors cannot be sustained and the consequential addition on account of interest paid to the loan creditors is also not sustainable. We may point out that during the arguments before us, the ld. DR could not controvert this fact that the assessee received all the impugned loans and returned the same during the same F.Y and interest was also paid thereon to the creditors. In this situation, the amount of loan which has been returned to the respective creditors and interest paid thereon cannot be taxed in the hands of the assessee as its income. Therefore, we have no reason to interfere with the conclusion of the CIT(A) on this issue and thus we uphold the same. - Decided against revenue.

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition of ?50,00,000/- under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and ?2,58,220/- as interest on unexplained cash credits.
2. Confirmation of adhoc disallowance of ?1 lakh under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
3. Applicability of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Addition under Section 68 and Interest on Unexplained Cash Credits:
The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of ?50,00,000/- made by the AO under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and ?2,58,220/- as interest on these unexplained cash credits. The Revenue argued that the assessee did not discharge the onus of proving the creditworthiness of the credits and genuineness of the transactions. The CIT(A) was said to have ignored the findings recorded by the AO that the assessee received the money from country operators.

The assessee countered by asserting that all the impugned monies were received and returned to the respective parties during the relevant financial period, with interest paid to the creditors. The CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee by observing that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing confirmation letters, assessment particulars including PAN, and copies of income tax returns of the loan creditors. The CIT(A) noted that the transactions were genuine, having taken place through banking channels, and the creditworthiness was established through the submission of balance sheets and profit & loss accounts of the loan creditors.

The CIT(A) also observed that the AO did not undertake further investigation to verify the genuineness of the transactions and creditworthiness of the creditors, despite having vast powers under Sections 131 and 133(6) of the Act. The AO did not provide the assessee with the statements of persons recorded by the Investigation Wing, nor did they allow the assessee to cross-examine these individuals, which goes against the principles of natural justice as established in the case of Prakash Chand Nahta v. Union of India [2001] 247 ITR 274 (SC).

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision, noting that the assessee had filed all necessary documents to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the creditors and the genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal also noted that the AO did not provide sufficient evidence to contradict the assessee’s claims and did not utilize the available powers to verify the evidence provided by the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)’s conclusion and dismissed the Revenue’s grounds of appeal.

2. Confirmation of Adhoc Disallowance under Section 14A:
The assessee raised an objection against the confirmation of an adhoc disallowance of ?1 lakh under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act. However, during the proceedings, the assessee did not press this ground, leading to its dismissal as not pressed.

3. Applicability of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962:
The assessee also contended that Rule 8D was not applicable to the year under assessment. However, this issue was not elaborated upon in the judgment, and the Tribunal did not provide a specific ruling on this contention.

Conclusion:
The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, and the cross objection of the assessee was also dismissed. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision to delete the addition of ?50,00,000/- and ?2,58,220/- as interest on unexplained cash credits, while the adhoc disallowance of ?1 lakh under Section 14A was dismissed as not pressed.

← Previous Next →