2020 (2) TMI 561 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 - Unexplained cash credit - AO observed that, assessee had invested a huge sum of money in booking of flats and properties although he was merely a salaried employee - HELD THAT - As perused the confirmation, Voter ID card, PAN card, Ledger account of Prem Kumar and affidavit of Sh. Sushil Kumar Yadav alongwith Cash Flow Statement and Statement of account of Raghuveer Sharma with Omaxe and others. Assessee has also filed a letter of Omaxe for transfer of property in the name of buyers; copy of passport of Sh. Vinod Kumar Khera; Allotment letter of plot to the assessee by Omaxe; confirmation from Shri SK Bothra alongwith his income tax return, confirmation, voter ID card and other documentary evidences for establishing the identity and genuineness of transactions. In the last, have also thoroughly perused the documentary evidences in the shape of Paper Book and assessee has established the creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction which require u/s. 68 of the Act and by establishing his onus. Addition in dispute is not sustainable in the eyes of law, because the assessee has discharged his onus u/s. 68 of the Act and therefore, the addition in dispute is hereby deleted.

Issues:
1. Validity of assessment order passed by AO under section 143(3)/263.
2. Admission of additional evidences under rule 46A.
3. Addition of ?34,65,096 under section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
4. Consideration of submissions by the appellant in confirming the addition.
5. Compliance with notices issued under section 133(6).
6. Jurisdiction of the CIT(A) in directing the AO to consider section 269SS applicability.

Issue 1: Validity of assessment order passed by AO under section 143(3)/263
The assessee challenged the assessment order passed by the AO under section 143(3)/263, claiming it to be illegal, arbitrary, and lacking jurisdiction. The CIT(A) upheld the assessment order. Subsequently, the Tribunal reviewed the case and noted discrepancies highlighted by the CIT, directing the assessee to provide explanations and documents. The AO observed that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of transactions, leading to an addition of ?46,00,892. Ultimately, the Tribunal found the addition unsustainable, as the assessee had submitted substantial documentary evidence supporting the transactions, leading to the deletion of the disputed addition.

Issue 2: Admission of additional evidences under rule 46A
The assessee contended that the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the admission of additional evidences under rule 46A. However, the Tribunal's detailed analysis of the documentary evidence submitted by the assessee showed that the additional evidences supported the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and deleted the disputed addition, indicating that the additional evidences were crucial in establishing the legitimacy of the transactions.

Issue 3: Addition of ?34,65,096 under section 68 of the Income Tax Act
The primary dispute revolved around the addition of ?34,65,096 under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee argued that the CIT(A) wrongly confirmed the addition without considering the evidence provided. The Tribunal carefully examined the extensive documentary evidence submitted by the assessee, including bank statements, affidavits, confirmations, and other supporting documents. After thorough review, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee had successfully demonstrated the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions, leading to the deletion of the disputed addition.

Issue 4: Consideration of submissions by the appellant in confirming the addition
The Tribunal analyzed the submissions made by both the appellant and the Department. While the Department supported the addition, the appellant argued for deletion based on the evidence presented. The Tribunal meticulously reviewed the documentary evidence provided by the appellant, which included a comprehensive set of documents supporting the transactions. Ultimately, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, highlighting that the evidence submitted sufficiently established the legitimacy of the transactions, warranting the deletion of the addition.

Issue 5: Compliance with notices issued under section 133(6)
One of the grounds for confirming the addition was the non-compliance with notices issued under section 133(6). However, the Tribunal's detailed examination of the documentary evidence presented by the assessee revealed substantial proof of the transactions' genuineness and creditworthiness. Consequently, the Tribunal found the addition unsustainable, emphasizing that the assessee had met the requirements of section 68 of the Act, leading to the deletion of the disputed addition.

Issue 6: Jurisdiction of the CIT(A) in directing the AO to consider section 269SS applicability
The CIT(A) directed the AO to examine the applicability of section 269SS, which the assessee argued was beyond the CIT(A)'s jurisdiction as it was not considered during the assessment proceedings. However, the Tribunal's thorough review of the case focused on the evidence presented by the assessee to establish the legitimacy of the transactions. The Tribunal ultimately ruled in favor of the assessee, deleting the disputed addition and indicating that the CIT(A)'s directive regarding section 269SS was not relevant in light of the evidence provided.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's detailed analysis of the case highlighted the importance of substantial documentary evidence in establishing the genuineness and creditworthiness of transactions. The Tribunal consistently found in favor of the assessee, deleting the disputed addition based on the assessee's successful discharge of the burden of proof under section 68 of the Income Tax Act.

← Previous Next →