9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (2) TMI 684 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 68 - Held that - The assessee has established that the loan in the question has been received through banking channel and further that proprietor of M/s Lotus Corporation was assessed to tax as was evident from his PAN Number. These evidences established that all three ingredients of Section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 are fulfilled thus, the addition in dispute is not sustainable in the eyes of law and needs to be deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee
Issues Involved:
1. Addition of ?30,00,000/- as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Charging of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Detailed Analysis: 1. Addition of ?30,00,000/- as Unexplained Cash Credits under Section 68: The assessee filed its return of income on 1.10.2013 declaring an income of ?12,06,530/-. The case was processed under Section 143(1) and later selected for scrutiny under CASS. During the assessment, the Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the assessee could not establish the relationship or business connection with M/s Lotus Corporation, nor could it justify the unsecured loan of ?30,00,000/- without any consideration or interest. Consequently, the AO treated the loan as bogus and added it to the income under Section 68, completing the assessment at ?42,06,530/-. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], who upheld the AO's decision, stating that the assessee failed to establish the identity, creditworthiness of M/s Lotus Corporation, and the genuineness of the transaction. Before the Tribunal, the assessee's counsel presented a detailed Paper Book containing various documents, including the computation of income, balance sheet, profit and loss account, tax audit report, bank statements, and confirmations from M/s Lotus Corporation. The counsel argued that the loan was received through banking channels, and the identity of the lender was established through PAN details, thus fulfilling all three ingredients of Section 68. The Tribunal, after examining the documents, concluded that the assessee had indeed established the receipt of the loan through banking channels and the lender's identity and creditworthiness. The Tribunal relied on several judicial precedents, including: - CIT vs. Sh. Raj Kumar Agarwal (Allahabad High Court): "Once identity is proved, production of the creditor is not the obligation of the assessee." - CIT vs. Sh. Ram Narain Goel (P&H HC): "Suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot take the place of evidence or proof." - Nemi Chand Kothari vs. CIT & Anr. (Gauhati): "It is not the business of the assessee to find out whether the source or sources from which the creditor had agreed to advance the amounts were genuine or not." Based on these precedents and the evidence provided, the Tribunal held that the addition of ?30,00,000/- was not sustainable and needed to be deleted. 2. Charging of Interest under Sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234D: The assessee also contested the charging of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, since the primary issue of the addition under Section 68 was resolved in favor of the assessee, the consequential interest charges under these sections were also not warranted. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, deleting the addition of ?30,00,000/- made under Section 68 and the consequential interest charges under Sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234D. The order was pronounced in the open court on 02/02/2017.
|
