2019 (7) TMI 1097 - HC - Income Tax

Unexplained cash credit u/s 68 - Addition of bogus expenses - identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the unsecured loan lender parties not proved by the assessee to he satisfaction of the AO - HELD THAT - Having gone through the materials on record, we are of the opinion that both the two questions as proposed by the Revenue cannot be termed as substantial questions of law involved in the present Tax Appeal. The Tribunal has concurred with the findings of fact recorded by the CIT (A). We do not find any perversity in the findings of fact recorded by the two Revenue authorities. - Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

Summary

Issues:
1. Unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Addition made on account of bogus expenses.

Analysis:
1. Unexplained Cash Credit:
The Revenue challenged the deletion of the addition made on account of unexplained cash credit of ?47,00,044 under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal examined the facts and found that the assessee had taken a loan from a specific individual and the bank statements confirmed the transactions. The lender also provided a statement under oath confirming the transactions. The Tribunal upheld the addition, dismissing the appeal of the assessee. The High Court concurred with the Tribunal's findings, stating that the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the lender were adequately proven.

2. Bogus Expenses:
The Revenue also contested the deletion of the addition made on account of bogus expenses amounting to ?2,15,68,848. The Tribunal observed that such expenses remaining unpaid for 2-3 months were common in the industry. The Assessing Officer had raised concerns about the undisclosed sources of cash payments to laborers and truck drivers. However, the Tribunal noted that the genuineness of the expenses was not in doubt, and it was a matter of estimating the undisclosed sources. The Tribunal referred to a similar case involving a sister concern of the assessee and accepted a profit margin of 1.39%. The CIT(A) considered a net profit of 2% instead of 1.79% shown by the assessee. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the appeal did not raise substantial questions of law. The findings of fact by the Revenue authorities were not found to be perverse.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the Tax Appeal by the Revenue, upholding the decisions of the Tribunal regarding both the unexplained cash credit and the bogus expenses issues. The judgment emphasized the importance of proving the genuineness and sources of transactions to avoid additions under the Income Tax Act.