2018 (7) TMI 1736 - HC - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 - bogus loan received from a paper company - Held that - Tribunal was right and justified in relying on the judgments of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Durga Prasad More, (1971 (8) TMI 17 - SUPREME COURT) and Sumati Dayal v. CIT, (1995 (3) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT), to reject mere paper work and look at the reality behind a facade created to hoodwink and deceive. Merely because the transaction was squared in the next financial year would not establish that the transaction was genuine and not bogus. Assessing Officer has rightly rejected the assessee s contentions on the ground that Shri Rajendra Bubna was confronted with only a sample of companies and was asked to confirm if he used these companies to provide accommodation entries, which was answered by him in positive - Decided against assessee

Summary

Issues involved:
- Addition of ?1,00,00,000 under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act
- Challenge to the Tribunal's findings as perverse
- Examination of the source of the loan from M/s. PTPL
- Verification of the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction
- Consideration of the nature and character of business activities of M/s. PTPL
- Involvement of directors of M/s. PTPL in multiple companies
- Allegations of M/s. PTPL providing accommodation entries
- Lack of knowledge by the appellant regarding the loan from M/s. PTPL
- Rejection of contentions for cross-examination of a witness
- Reliance on Supreme Court judgments to discern the reality behind transactions

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act concerning the addition of ?1,00,00,000 made by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the Tribunal. The appellant contested the findings as perverse, emphasizing the repayment of the loan to M/s. PTPL before the assessment proceedings, supported by banking transactions. However, the Tribunal deemed the loan transaction as a facade and bogus, citing various grounds. The Tribunal highlighted discrepancies in M/s. PTPL's financial status, meager income, and lack of tangible assets, casting doubt on the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction.

Furthermore, the involvement of directors in multiple companies, allegations of providing accommodation entries by M/s. PTPL, and the appellant's lack of knowledge regarding the loan raised suspicions. Despite contentions for cross-examination of a witness being rejected, the Tribunal relied on Supreme Court judgments to look beyond superficial transactions. The judgment emphasized the need to discern the reality behind transactions, dismissing the appeal and pending application without costs, citing the insufficiency of evidence to establish the loan's genuineness.

In conclusion, the judgment meticulously scrutinized the source and legitimacy of the loan, considering various factors such as financial discrepancies, directorship patterns, and lack of knowledge by the appellant. By relying on legal precedents, the Tribunal underscored the importance of looking beyond surface transactions to uncover the true nature of financial dealings.