2018 (5) TMI 753 - AT - Income Tax

Undisclosed income under section 68 - unexplained loan - Held that - As per the settled law, if the identity of the shareholders and genuineness of transactions had been established by the assessee, the addition could have been made in the hands of shareholder(s). We are of the considered view that assessee has duly explained the source of money received and the assessee is not answerable for the source of money in the hands of investors, who had already died. As decided in case of Lovely exports 2008 (1) TMI 575 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA if the share application money is received by the assessee company from alleged bogus shareholders, whose names are given to the AO, then the Department is free to proceed to reopen their individual assessments in accordance with law. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Assessment order validity under section 143(3), addition of unexplained loan under section 68, burden of proof on creditworthiness, adequacy of evidence, jurisdiction of appellate tribunal.

Analysis:
1. Assessment Order Validity (Section 143(3)):
The appeal challenged the assessment order under section 143(3), claiming it to be illegal, bad in law, and without jurisdiction. The appellant argued that the assessing officer's addition/disallowances were unjust and excessive, not based on material evidence, resulting in a higher computed income. The appellant contended that proper opportunity for presenting evidence was not provided during assessment proceedings, affecting the assessment's legality.

2. Addition of Unexplained Loan (Section 68):
The assessing officer made an addition of ?3,75,000 on account of an unexplained loan under section 68 from a deceased individual. The appellant failed to prove the creditworthiness regarding the loan, leading to the addition. The CIT(A) upheld this action. However, during the appeal hearing, the appellant submitted substantial evidence, including responses from the deceased lender's legal heir, bank statements, and other relevant documents. The appellant argued that the burden of proof was met, citing legal precedents.

3. Burden of Proof on Creditworthiness:
The assessing officer required the appellant to prove the creditworthiness of the lender, which the appellant failed to do initially. However, the appellant later provided detailed documentation to establish the legitimacy of the loan transaction. The tribunal noted that the appellant was not accountable for the source of funds in the hands of deceased investors, as long as the identity and genuineness of transactions were established.

4. Adequacy of Evidence and Legal Precedents:
The tribunal analyzed the evidence presented by the appellant, including legal judgments such as CIT vs. Lovely Exports and Zafa Ahmad & Co. vs. CIT. It was observed that the authorities below did not properly appreciate the evidence submitted. The tribunal emphasized that if the identity of shareholders and genuineness of transactions were proven, additions should have been made in the shareholders' hands, not the appellant's.

5. Jurisdiction of Appellate Tribunal:
The tribunal, after considering all evidence and legal arguments, deleted the disputed addition, following the precedent set by the Supreme Court. The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that the addition was unjustified, and there was no need to address other grounds raised by the appellant. The appeal was allowed, and the order was pronounced on 09-05-2018.