9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 1350 - AT - Income TaxAdditions u/s 68 - genuineness of creditors - advance against sale of land - validity of Agreement to Sell was executed on 12th March, 2010 between the parties - A.O. made investigation from Stamp Vendor etc. The A.O. recorded the statement of Stamp Vendor etc., and made further enquiry into the matter and noted that stamp paper was issued by the Delhi Treasury on 22nd March, 2012 i.e., 02 years after the date of execution. Valuation of property was found at lessor amount. - Held that - The A.O. did not doubt existence of creditor and its creditworthiness. Thus, A.O. accepted identity of creditor and its creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. For proving case under section 68, assessee is required to prove identity of creditor, its creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction, which assessee has proved in this case. The valuation of property may not be relevant to discard the explanation of assessee particularly when amount is returned in subsequent year. There was no justification to make the addition under section 68 of the I.T. Act. - According to Section 68 of the I.T. Act, assessee has to prove only the source of the credit. In this case, it is not an ordinary credit, but, assessee has received advance against sale of the property. Therefore, the explanation of assessee should not have been doubted by the A.O - No additions - Decided against the revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Detailed Analysis: 1. Deletion of Addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The Revenue challenged the deletion of an addition of ?67.50 crores under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the CIT(A). The brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer (A.O.) noticed a fresh sundry creditor, M/s. Unitech Ltd., in the balance sheet of the assessee, listed under "Current Liabilities" for ?67.50 crores. The assessee provided details of the transaction, including an Agreement to Sell dated 12th March 2010, confirming the receipt of ?67.50 crores as an advance for the sale of land in Maharashtra. The A.O. doubted the transaction due to discrepancies in the date of the stamp paper used for the agreement and added the amount under Section 68. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), explaining that the Agreement to Sell was initially executed on plain paper and later on a Non-Judicial Stamp Paper in 2012, with the original date inadvertently mentioned. The assessee provided confirmations, bank statements, ITR, and balance sheets of M/s. Unitech Ltd., proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction. The CIT(A) found that the assessee had discharged the initial onus under Section 68 by proving these elements and noted that the A.O. did not dispute the transaction through the banking channel. The CIT(A) also considered the legal principle that mere nomenclature in the books of accounts does not change the nature of the transaction. The CIT(A) concluded that the irregularities pointed out by the A.O. regarding the stamp paper were not relevant under the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) referenced various judicial precedents, including CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Mod Creations Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO, and others, to support the view that the assessee had satisfactorily proved the identity, capacity, and genuineness of the transaction. The Tribunal, upon reviewing the submissions, upheld the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal noted that the assessee received the amount through RTGS, confirmed by M/s. Unitech Ltd., and that the creditor's creditworthiness was evident from their financial statements. The Tribunal emphasized that the A.O.'s doubts based on the stamp paper issue were insufficient to reject the assessee's explanation, especially when the transaction was documented and confirmed by both parties. The Tribunal cited several judicial precedents to support the view that the assessee had met the requirements under Section 68 by proving the source of the credit, its identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness. In conclusion, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal and dismissed it, affirming the CIT(A)'s order to delete the addition of ?67.50 crores under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
|
