2017 (3) TMI 397 - HC - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 - Held that - Tribunal in the instant case had examined the evidence on record, the most material being the conclusion drawn by the Assessing Officer after having been required to examine the issue and submit his report before the CIT (Appeals). The Assessing Officer himself having accepted the identity of the creditors, the genuineness of the transactions and the creditworthiness of the creditors in his remand report, it is no longer open to the department to contend otherwise. - Decided in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Identical issues in multiple appeals arising from a common order of the Tribunal dated 29.04.2011.

Analysis:
The appeals were consolidated, with Income Tax Appeal No.730 of 2012 as the leading case. The appellant challenged the Tribunal's order for the assessment year 2005-06 under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The main issue revolved around the applicability of Rule 46-A of the Income Tax Act, which was not raised before the Tribunal. The appeal was confined to questioning the Tribunal's decision regarding unexplained credits and the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Act.

During the original assessment, the Assessing Officer added &8377; 45,50,000 under Section 68 for cash credits obtained by the assessee. The CIT (Appeals) called for a remand report, where the Assessing Officer acknowledged the satisfactory nature of the explanations provided by the assessee regarding the credits. The CIT (Appeals) relied on the Assessing Officer's conclusions and allowed the appeal, setting aside the additions made under Section 68.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT (Appeals) decision based on the evidence and findings on record. It noted that the Assessing Officer had accepted the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditors in the remand report, precluding the department from challenging these aspects. The Tribunal's findings were considered conclusive on merit and evidence, warranting no interference by the Court.

Consequently, the Court ruled in favor of the assessee and against the revenue, dismissing the appeal. The decision was based on the Tribunal's thorough examination of the facts and evidence, affirming the Assessing Officer's conclusions and rejecting the department's contentions.