2019 (5) TMI 30 - HC - Income Tax

Addition of unexplained Cash Credit - person could not be produced as he was travelling out of India most of the times - production of the Bank Account copies - HELD THAT - We are of the opinion that the Assessee can be accorded one more opportunity to prove the said Cash Credit in the name of his close relative Mr.Bhuma Ramakrishna Reddy, who could not be produced before the CIT (Appeals) though the copies of the Bank Account details were furnished by the Assessee. The mere production of the Bank Account copies was not sufficient and the entires made therein were required to be proved by the Assessee by production of the said witness Mr.Bhuma Ramakrishna Reddy. Allow verification of entries in Bank Statement in this regard, we are of the considered opinion that it would be appropriate and in the interest of justice to remit the matter back to the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who may examine the said witness at his own level and return the findings in this regard.

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Confirmation of addition despite proof of genuineness of transactions
- Perverse finding regarding whereabouts of a relative
- Treatment of transferred amounts as unexplained cash credit

Confirmation of Addition Despite Proof of Genuineness of Transactions:
The Assessee appealed against the Tribunal's decision to dismiss their appeal, upholding the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) order for the Assessment Year 2014-2015. The primary issue was whether the Tribunal was correct in confirming the addition despite the Assessee proving the genuineness of transactions by presenting bank statements from both parties. The Assessee failed to produce Bhuma Ramakrishna Reddy, the brother-in-law, who supposedly made advances to the Assessee from his ICICI Bank account. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) drew an adverse inference due to the absence of Reddy, leading to the confirmation of additions made by the Assessing Officer.

Perverse Finding Regarding Whereabouts of a Relative:
The Assessee's counsel argued that Reddy could not be produced as he was frequently traveling abroad. Despite submitting Reddy's bank account details, the Assessee requested another opportunity to present Reddy for verification of the credit entries. The Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue opposed this submission, supporting the previous orders. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) highlighted the lack of explanation from the Assessee's representative regarding Reddy's cash credit, emphasizing the absence of a confirmation letter from Reddy.

Treatment of Transferred Amounts as Unexplained Cash Credit:
The Tribunal upheld the findings, stating that the Assessee failed to provide any details about Reddy's whereabouts or a confirmation letter from him. The Tribunal agreed with the lower authorities that the addition was justified due to the lack of evidence and information regarding Reddy and his bank account status. Despite finding no substantial legal question, the Court granted the Assessee one more opportunity to prove the cash credit in Reddy's name. The Court directed the matter back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for further examination, emphasizing the importance of producing Reddy for verification of bank statement entries.

In conclusion, the Court allowed the Assessee another chance to substantiate the cash credit by producing Reddy for verification. The Court highlighted the necessity of proving the entries in the bank statement through Reddy's testimony. The matter was remitted back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for reevaluation, with a directive for timely resolution.