2016 (9) TMI 1214 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained cash credit - addition u/s 68 - increase in sundry creditors as at the end of the year - Held that - As from the material and evidence on record, the complete details of the impugned credits was made available to the Assessing Officer. The two creditors responded to the enquiries carried out by the Assessing Officer and confirmed the transactions. There is no material led by the Revenue to show that any of the evidences produced before him was wrong or otherwise not credible. The explanations furnished by the assessee, as also by the two creditors have been merely disbelieved and it is not a case where any of the evidence has been found to be false or untrue. Factually speaking, in the present case, the assessee company has completely discharged the initial burden cast on it to explain the nature and source of the credits. The arrangement between assessee and its tenants by way of the tenancy agreement was also before the Assessing Officer. The onus that is cast under section 68 of the Act is not static, inasmuch as it shifts to the Revenue depending on the material and evidence led by the assessee at a given stage. The Assessing Officer had before him the averments of the sundry creditors, the income tax details of the sundry creditors, the balance sheets of the two creditors which showed the amount in question, etc. By merely pointing out that further evidence in the shape of bank account of the creditors was not available, does not distract from the fact that whatever evidence that was on record before the Assessing Officer has not been found untrue or false by him. Therefore, in so far as the assessee is concerned, it has completely discharged it s onus of explaining the nature and source of the credits in question and such explanation stood corroborated by the two creditors. Considering the entirety of circumstances, in our view, the Assessing Officer has merely proceeded to disbelieve the evidence led by the assessee and not made any effort to establish any falsity or untruth in the same. Therefore, AO was wrong in holding that the explanation rendered by the assessee was not satisfactory within the meaning of section 68 of the Act. Thus we set-aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made under section 68 of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the increase in sundry creditors of ?55,71,480 was an unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2000-01.

Analysis:
The appeal pertains to the assessment year 2000-01 and challenges the order passed by the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary dispute revolves around the treatment of ?55,71,480 as an unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. The appellant argued that the increased balance of sundry creditors represented amounts due to tenants for expenses incurred on civil renovation work, providing various supporting documents like confirmations, board resolutions, balance sheets, and income returns. The CIT(A) initially deleted the addition, but the Revenue appealed. The Tribunal noted inadequate opportunity for the Assessing Officer to examine details and remanded the case. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer held the amount as unexplained under section 68. The appellant contended that the nature and source of credits were adequately explained with evidence, including confirmations and statements of accounts from the creditors.

The controversy centers on the interpretation of section 68 of the Act, which empowers the Assessing Officer to question unexplained cash credits. The appellant, a company engaged in investments, clarified that the increased credits were due to expenses incurred by tenants on property renovation. The appellant provided detailed explanations, resolutions, and communications from the creditors to support the legitimacy of the credits. The Revenue argued that the absence of bank statements and repair expense bills from the creditors rendered the credits unexplained. However, the Tribunal found that the evidence presented by the appellant, along with confirmations and income tax returns from the creditors, sufficiently established the nature and source of the credits. The Tribunal emphasized that the burden of proof shifts to the Revenue if the assessee provides credible evidence, which was not refuted in this case. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the deletion of the addition under section 68.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant and directing the Assessing Officer to remove the addition of ?55,71,480 under section 68 of the Act.