2019 (9) TMI 754 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained cash credit u/s 68 - notices issued under section 133(6) - HELD THAT - All the details comprising financial statements, PAN, ITRs, bank statements and confirmation of loan transactions were duly filed and even responses were received to the notices issued under section 133(6) of the Act by the AO. In our opinion, the Ld. CIT(A) has correctly passed the order deleting the said addition by taking into account various decisions of various judicial forums. Though the notices could not be served under section 133(6) of the Act but assessee has filed the additional evidences pertaining to these parties during the course of appellate proceedings which were forwarded to the AO for verification and the AO filed remand report dated 21.06.2017. In the remand report, the AO only stated that these evidences should not be accepted primarily on the ground that these were not filed during the original assessment proceedings. CIT(A) has taken a very reasoned view after taking into account of the evidences on record and reply of the assessee filed in response to the remand report. Therefore, we do not find any reason to disturb the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue Sum representing the loans raised from two parties Daksh Diamond and Naman Export who were related to M/s. Bhanwarlal group, we observe that the assessee has filed all the evidences before the AO and the transactions were duly confirmed. The AO has only relied on the statement recorded during the course of search of Shri Bhanwarlal Jain under section 132(4) of the Act which also stood retracted by the said person and has no evidentiary value. In our opinion the Ld. CIT(A) has passed a very reasoned order citing various justifications and reasons for deleting the addition. Therefore we are inclined to uphold the order of ld CIT(A) by dismissing the ground no. 1 raised by the revenue. Addition u/s 36(1)(iii) - HELD THAT - The facts in brief are that during the course of assessment proceedings no addition of ₹ 2,90,96,145/- was made under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act by the AO to the income of the assessee and therefore this ground is not arising out of the assessment order as pointed out by the Ld. A.R. and candidly admitted by the Ld. A.R. and therefore the same is dismissed. Disallowance of interest on the unsecured loans - CIT(A) deleted the disallowance by holding that since the loans raised by the assessee on which the said interest was paid have been held to be genuine and consequently the interest on the said loan was admissible as expense - HELD THAT - Since we have already upheld the order of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the additions on account of loans raised to which this interest pertained to and therefore we dismiss the ground raised by the Revenue challenging the allowance of interest on these loans as this ground is consequential to ground No.1. Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - HELD THAT - CIT(A) has passed a very reasoned order by following the special bench decision in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investment (P.) Ltd. 2017 (6) TMI 1124 - ITAT DELHI wherein special bench held that while calculating the disallowance under rule 8D only those investments which yielded exempt income during the year ought to be considered for the purpose of average investments. Accordingly, we are inclined to uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A) by dismissing the ground raised by the Revenue. - Decided against revenue

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition on account of unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the IT Act.
2. Disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) of the IT Act.
3. Disallowance of interest related to unsecured loans.
4. Disallowance under section 14A of the IT Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Addition on Account of Unexplained Cash Credit under Section 68 of the IT Act:
The Revenue challenged the deletion of additions totaling ?14,32,00,000/- and ?2,50,00,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained cash credits. The AO had categorized the loans into three groups:
a) Loans where the financial statements did not prove the creditworthiness or genuineness of the transactions.
b) Loans where notices remained unserved.
c) Accommodation entries.

The AO added ?9,97,00,000/- from seven parties, ?4,35,00,000/- from four parties where notices were unserved, and ?2,50,00,000/- from two parties related to the Bhanwarlal Jain group based on alleged hawala entries. The CIT(A) deleted these additions, observing that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including financial statements, PANs, bank statements, and confirmations from lenders. The CIT(A) noted that the AO did not provide the assessee with a copy of the statement from Shri Bhanwarlal Jain or allow cross-examination, thus violating principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the assessee had discharged its burden of proof regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal also noted that the AO's reliance on a retracted statement without corroborating evidence was insufficient for making additions.

2. Disallowance of Interest under Section 36(1)(iii) of the IT Act:
The Revenue's second ground pertained to the disallowance of interest amounting to ?2,90,96,145/- under section 36(1)(iii). However, it was noted that no such addition was made during the assessment proceedings, and thus this ground did not arise from the assessment order. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed this ground.

3. Disallowance of Interest Related to Unsecured Loans:
The AO had disallowed interest of ?46,50,257/- on unsecured loans, treating part of the borrowings as non-genuine. The CIT(A) deleted this disallowance, reasoning that since the loans were held to be genuine, the corresponding interest was admissible as an expense. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that this ground was consequential to the first issue, which had already been resolved in favor of the assessee.

4. Disallowance under Section 14A of the IT Act:
The AO had made a disallowance of ?4,87,52,408/- under section 14A read with Rule 8D, related to expenses incurred for earning exempt income. The CIT(A) directed the AO to restrict the disallowance to investments that yielded exempt income during the year, following the Special Bench decision in ACIT vs. Vireet Investment (P.) Ltd. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing with the rationale provided.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decisions on all grounds. The order emphasized the importance of providing adequate evidence and following principles of natural justice in tax assessments.