9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 161 - AT - Income TaxAddition of unexplained cash credits u/s 68 - purchase of fixed assets followed payment by way of share capital subscription - HELD THAT - Revenue is fair enough in not disputing the clinching factual aspects of addition of the corresponding fixed assets. Nor there is any evidence that the assessee s assets do not exist as per physical verification. We are of the view in this factual backdrop that both the lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in treating the above purchase of fixed assets followed payment by way of share capital subscription as an instance of unexplained cash credits u/s. 68 of the Act. This tribunal s co-ordinate bench s decision in Income Tax Officer Ward-5(3) vs. M/s Bhagwat Marcom Pvt. Ltd. 2019 (8) TMI 649 - ITAT KOLKATA has taken into consideration the entire case law to conclude that such an instance not involving any cash credits pursuing cannot be treated as unexplained u/s 68.B oth the learned authorities have erred in law and on facts in treating the sum in issue as unexplained cash credits. The same is directed to be deleted. Disallowing of depreciation claim on account of fixed assets - Disallowance includes disallowance of depreciation on account of addition to shad and building and addition to plant and machinery - HELD THAT - The assessee fails to pin-point any irregularity in the above depreciation chart indicating the correct figure of ₹3,88,15,062/- as against that claim of ₹4,49,88,165/-. We accordingly uphold the impugned depreciation disallowance therefore. The assessee s second substantive ground is rejected
Issues Involved:
1. Addition of unexplained cash credits under Section 68. 2. Set off of business loss against unexplained cash credits. 3. Disallowance of depreciation claim. Detailed Analysis: 1. Addition of Unexplained Cash Credits under Section 68: The Revenue's sole substantive ground was the addition of unexplained cash credits under Section 68, which the CIT(A) confirmed but allowed set-off against business loss. The assessee challenged the treatment of its share capital sum of ?3.25 crores as unexplained cash credits. The sum came from three parties: M/s Celebration Vintrade Pvt. Ltd., M/s Nice Commotrade Pvt. Ltd., and M/s Samrat Rice Mill Pvt. Ltd. The CIT(A) upheld the addition, citing non-genuine transactions and failure to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The CIT(A) referenced multiple judicial pronouncements, including CIT vs. Ruby Traders and Exporters Ltd., and CIT vs. Sophia Finance Ltd., emphasizing the assessee's onus to prove the source of credits. Despite the assessee's submissions, the CIT(A) found the transactions lacked bona fide investment characteristics and upheld the addition. 2. Set Off of Business Loss Against Unexplained Cash Credits: The assessee contended that the addition should be set off against the assessed business loss. The CIT(A) agreed, noting the impugned amount was credited in the assessee's books as business receipts. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Lakshmichand Baijnath vs. CIT and other cases, the CIT(A) concluded that such receipts should be treated as business income, allowing the set-off of business loss against the addition of ?3.25 crores. 3. Disallowance of Depreciation Claim: The assessee's claim of ?4,49,24,859/- in depreciation was revised by the Assessing Officer (AO) to ?3,88,15,062/- due to discrepancies in the opening Written Down Value (WDV) and additions during the year. The AO disallowed ?67,73,103/- as excess depreciation. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance, noting the correct WDV should have been ?27,74,98,360/- instead of ?30,61,41,844/-. The assessee failed to demonstrate any error in the AO's depreciation schedule. Tribunal's Decision: The tribunal found that the lower authorities erred in treating the purchase of fixed assets followed by share capital subscription as unexplained cash credits under Section 68. It referenced the tribunal's decision in Income Tax Officer Ward-5(3) vs. M/s Bhagwat Marcom Pvt. Ltd., concluding that transactions not involving cash credits could not be treated as unexplained under Section 68. Consequently, the tribunal directed the deletion of the ?3.25 crores addition. However, the tribunal upheld the disallowance of the depreciation claim, affirming the AO's revised depreciation figure. Conclusion: - The Revenue's appeal was dismissed. - The assessee's appeal was partly allowed, with the deletion of the ?3.25 crores addition but upholding the depreciation disallowance. - The tribunal emphasized the necessity of proving the genuineness of transactions and the correct application of Section 68, aligning with established judicial precedents.
|
