2020 (3) TMI 207 - AT - Income Tax

Additions on account of unverifiable creditors - Revenue holding that the creditors in the balance sheet are found not genuine and assessee had failed to establish that the said creditor was genuine and did not produced confirmation - HELD THAT - Apparently the assessee was not debtor in the books of M/s.Pamis Tex Pvt. Ltd., as on 31.03.2009 thus, had reached to two possibilities i.e. either the claim of purchase by assessee from M/s. Pamis Tex Pvt. Ltd., is bogus or unaccounted payment has been made to M/s.Pamis Tex Pvt. Ltd., in A.Y. 2006-07 and A.Y. 2007-08. In any of those situations, the income chargeable to tax pertained to A.Y. 2006-07 and A.Y. 2007-08 and since the same has escaped assessment. Therefore, the same was required to be made in A.Y. 2006-07 and 2007-08. Therefore, considering all those facts it was directed to the AO u/s.150(1) of the I.T.Act to issue notice u/s.148 for A.Y. 2006-07 and A.Y. 2007-08 and add unaccounted payment pertaining to each year in that assessment year. Accordingly, the ld.DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue also stated at BAR that the assessment years for A.Y. 2006-07 to 2007-08 have already been reopened and respective additions have already been made in those years. The said fact has also been confirmed by the assessee at BAR. Since both the parties have agreed that additions have already been made in the respective assessment years i.e. 2006-07 and 2007- 08, therefore, there is no cause left before the ld.DR to challenge this finding recorded by the ld.CIT(A) in this assessment year as the order passed by ld.CIT(A) has already been complied with and now there is no loss to the Revenue. DR has failed to substantiate its argument as to how and in what manner the order passed by the ld.CIT(A) on this ground is not sustainable in Law or what impropriety has been committed by the ld.CIT(A). No new facts or circumstances have been brought before us in order to controvert or rebut the findings recorded by ld.CIT(A). Therefore, we find no reasons to interfere or deviate from the lawful findings so recorded by ld.CIT(A), thus we upheld the same and dismiss this ground of appeal of Revenue Unexplained repayment of unsecured loans - sources and nature of the amount of repayment of the same were not proved despite repeated opportunities - HELD THAT - As during the appellate proceedings, the assessee has filed all required documents which have already been got verified by ld.CIT(A) by seeking Remand Report from the AO which established that the entire loan has already been repaid by the assessee. Thus, the ld.CIT(A) rightly concluded that the repayment of the loan mentioned that there had been reduction in the liability and unless there is an evidence that these repayment has been bade out of unaccounted income, no addition can be made. It was also held that if the AO feel that unsecured loans were bogus, then in that eventuality the corresponding addition was required to made in the year in which the unsecured loans were taken. No new facts or circumstances have been brought before in order to controvert or repaid the factual findings so recorded by the CIT(A). No infirmity in the order of ld.CIT(A), accordingly same is upheld, consequently Ground No.2 of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Unexplained advances to suppliers - nature and genuineness of the transaction was not proved by the assessee either during the course of assessment proceedings or during the remand proceedings - HELD THAT - As during the appellate proceedings the ld.CIT(A) has sought Remand Reports from the AO and after appreciating said factual findings had rightly concluded that in comments filed dated 01.08.2013 the assessee has mentioned that the above amount is not advanced to the supplier, but in fact debtors of the assessee and the audited report has wrongly mentioned it as advance to suppliers. Therefore, in such circumstances it was rightly concluded by the ld.CIT(A) the if AO doubted the source of these payments, the addition should have been made of the corresponding liability, which has been used to finance this advance. In any case, an item on the asset side of the balance sheet can be added in the hands of the assessee unless the corresponding liability to finance the asset has been brought found to be consequently the additions were rightly deleted. In the light of above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of ld.CIT(A), accordingly same is upheld, consequently Ground No.3 of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition of ?4,96,27,261/- in respect of unverifiable creditors.
2. Deletion of addition of ?28,32,496/- regarding unexplained repayment towards unsecured loans.
3. Deletion of addition of ?1,39,31,025/- in respect of unexplained advances to suppliers.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Deletion of Addition of ?4,96,27,261/- in Respect of Unverifiable Creditors
The Revenue challenged the deletion of ?4,96,27,261/- by the CIT(A), arguing that the assessee could not prove the genuineness of the creditors during assessment and remand proceedings. The CIT(A) directed that the amount should be added in A.Y. 2006-07 and 2007-08, as the debtor, M/s. Pamis Tex Pvt. Ltd., did not show the assessee as a creditor for A.Y. 2009-10.

The Tribunal noted that the AO made the additions due to unverifiable creditors and the assessee's failure to provide confirmations and documentary evidence. The CIT(A) sought remand reports, which revealed discrepancies between the creditor balances in the assessee's and M/s. Pamis Tex Pvt. Ltd.'s books. The CIT(A) concluded that either the purchases were bogus or unaccounted payments were made in A.Y. 2006-07 and 2007-08. The AO was directed to issue notices u/s 148 for those years, and the addition for A.Y. 2009-10 was deleted. The Tribunal upheld CIT(A)’s order, noting that the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 had been reopened and the respective additions made.

Issue 2: Deletion of Addition of ?28,32,496/- Regarding Unexplained Repayment Towards Unsecured Loans
The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of ?28,32,496/- for unexplained repayment of unsecured loans, as the sources and nature of the repayments were not proved. The AO added the amount due to the assessee's failure to explain the source of repayment.

The Tribunal reviewed the CIT(A)’s findings that the repayment of loans indicated a reduction in liability, and unless there was evidence of unaccounted income, no addition could be made. The CIT(A) noted that if the unsecured loans were bogus, the addition should have been made in the year the loans were taken. The Tribunal found no infirmity in CIT(A)'s order, as the assessee provided required documents during appellate proceedings, which were verified, establishing that the loans were repaid.

Issue 3: Deletion of Addition of ?1,39,31,025/- in Respect of Unexplained Advances to Suppliers
The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of ?1,39,31,025/- for unexplained advances to suppliers, as the assessee did not prove the nature and genuineness of the transactions during assessment or remand proceedings. The AO made the addition due to the assessee's failure to furnish the list of suppliers.

The Tribunal examined the CIT(A)’s conclusion that the amount represented debtors, not advances to suppliers, and was an asset on the balance sheet. The CIT(A) noted that if the AO doubted the source of payments, the addition should have been made to the corresponding liability. The Tribunal upheld CIT(A)’s order, finding no infirmity, as the amount on the asset side could not be added unless the corresponding liability was found to be bogus.

Conclusion
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)’s deletion of additions for unverifiable creditors, unexplained repayment towards unsecured loans, and unexplained advances to suppliers. The Tribunal found no errors in the CIT(A)’s detailed analysis and conclusions based on the remand reports and additional evidence provided by the assessee.