2019 (1) TMI 886 - HC - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 - Held that - As per Section 68 of the Act, if the explanation offered by the assessee regarding nature and source of sum credited in his books of account is not found satisfactory by the AO, the said sum can be charged to income tax. The explanations offered were not found satisfactory by all the three authorities below. The findings recorded by the Tribunal is based on material on record and after appreciating the evidence adduced. The order of the Tribunal does not call for any interference by this Court.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act without granting reasonable opportunity to the creditor.
2. Denial of assessee's right of opportunity under Section 68 due to AO's inaction.
3. Addition under Section 68 despite the assessee substantiating identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition under Section 68 without granting reasonable opportunity to the creditor:
The assessee argued that the addition under Section 68 was made without providing a reasonable opportunity to the creditor, Ishwar Singh, to produce further documents. The court noted that Ishwar Singh was the witness of the assessee and that the assessee did not request further opportunities to present documents before the Assessing Officer (AO). The Tribunal found that Ishwar Singh did not have a Permanent Account Number (PAN), did not file an Income Tax Return, and could not produce any documentary evidence to support the alleged transaction of sale and purchase of ancestral property. The court concluded that the assessee's claim lacked merit as the assessee did not seek permission to produce additional documents in subsequent appeals.

2. Denial of assessee's right of opportunity under Section 68 due to AO's inaction:
The assessee contended that the AO's failure to act on the request to obtain the creditor's statement denied the assessee's right of opportunity under Section 68. The court observed that the assessee was given ample opportunity to explain the discrepancies in the books of account and to prove the creditworthiness and genuineness of the unsecured loans. The AO had issued notices and provided opportunities to the assessee to present evidence. The court found that the assessee did not utilize these opportunities effectively and failed to produce the necessary documents and witnesses, including Urmila Devi, the assessee's wife, to substantiate the claims.

3. Addition under Section 68 despite substantiating identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction:
The assessee claimed that the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions with Ishwar Singh and Urmila Devi were substantiated, and therefore, the addition under Section 68 was unwarranted. The court highlighted that Ishwar Singh's creditworthiness was not proven as he did not have a PAN, did not file Income Tax Returns, and could not provide any documentary evidence for the transactions. Similarly, the unsecured loan of ?4,00,000 from Urmila Devi was found to be questionable as the bank statement showed a cash deposit on the same day the cheque was issued to the assessee, and her declared income was only ?64,007. The court upheld the findings of the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, which confirmed the addition under Section 68 due to the lack of satisfactory explanation and evidence from the assessee.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeal, stating that the explanations offered by the assessee were not satisfactory and that the findings of the Tribunal were based on the material on record and a proper appreciation of the evidence. The court found no substantial questions of law arising from the appeal and upheld the addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.