2018 (1) TMI 1144 - AT - Income Tax

Addition invoking the provisions of section 68 in respect of loan credit - genuineness of transaction proved - Held that - We find that the assessee has produced copy of Pan Card, Income Tax returns acknowledgement, letter from RBI, Bank statements depicting this entry of loan of ₹ 1.50 crore, auditor report, financial statements etc. to prove the creditworthiness of the party, genuineness of transaction and sources of transaction. We find that in earlier years i.e. AY 2010-11 also, the assessee has obtained loan of ₹ 1.12 crores from the same party, wherein exactly on identical circumstances CIT(A) deleted and further, Tribunal has confirmed the order of CIT(A). Sr. Departmental Representative could not controvert how genuineness of transaction is not proved. In view of the above facts and circumstances and the issue is consistently allowed in favour of assessee, respectfully following Tribunal orders in earlier years, we confirm the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition. The appeal of Revenue is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, regarding a loan credit of ?1.50 crores from Albright Consultant Pvt. Ltd.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Addition under Section 68:

The primary issue in this appeal concerns the deletion of an addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, regarding a loan credit of ?1.50 crores received by the assessee from Albright Consultant Pvt. Ltd. The Revenue raised several grounds challenging the deletion by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]:

a. Creditworthiness of the Creditor:
The Revenue argued that the creditworthiness of Albright Consultant Pvt. Ltd. was not proven as the creditor did not have sufficient income during the year to advance such a huge amount. The CIT(A), however, found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentation, including the creditor's PAN card, income tax returns, bank statements, and other financial reports, to establish the creditor's identity and creditworthiness.

b. Absence of Written Agreement:
The Revenue highlighted the absence of a written agreement regarding the sharing of profit or interest related to the specific project for which the amount was claimed to be invested. The CIT(A) did not specifically address this point but focused on the overall genuineness of the transaction.

c. Source of Loan Funds:
The Revenue contended that the sources of the loan funds were claimed to be from the sale of shares of third-party private limited companies, most of which were related to the same group. The CIT(A) noted that the assessee had provided detailed documentation to trace the source of the transaction, which the AO had rejected without proper enquiry.

d. Common Group and Arrangement Allegation:
The Revenue alleged that all companies involved, including Albright Consultant Pvt. Ltd., had common addresses, chambers, officers, and directors, suggesting it was an arrangement to route funds. The CIT(A) did not find this argument sufficient to disprove the genuineness of the transaction, especially given the detailed documentation provided by the assessee.

e. Statements from Search Action:
The Revenue referred to statements made by Shri Jagdish Prasad Purohit during a search action, indicating that the transactions were accommodation entries. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal found that the documentation provided by the assessee sufficiently established the genuineness of the transaction, and the AO had not conducted proper enquiries to substantiate these allegations.

Tribunal's Findings:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the assessee had produced comprehensive documentation to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction. The Tribunal also referenced previous years' cases where similar additions were deleted under identical circumstances. The Tribunal emphasized that the primary onus under section 68 is on the assessee to prove the cash credits, which the assessee had done. The burden then shifted to the AO, who failed to disprove the assessee's claims with substantial evidence.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition of ?1.50 crores under section 68, stating that the Revenue could not provide sufficient evidence to counter the assessee's documentation and the consistent findings in previous years. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, and the order was pronounced in the open court on 24-01-2018.