2020 (10) TMI 405 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 - creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transaction proved or not? - HELD THAT - A.O. did not make any adequate enquiry on the documentary evidences filed by the assessee-company clearly established that assessee-company proved identity of the creditors, their creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transaction in the matter. Merely low income declared in the return of income by the creditors is no ground to reject the explanation of the assessee-company because their creditworthiness is in several crores as is already admitted by the A.O. in the assessment order. We set aside the orders of the authorities below and delete the entire addition. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Large interest expenses related to exempt income under Section 14A.
3. Mismatch in the amount paid to related persons under Section 40A(2)(b).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The primary issue in this case was the addition of ?1.16 crores under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which pertains to unexplained cash credits. The assessee received unsecured loans from three parties: Ambashree Infratech (P) Ltd., Blockdeal Dealcom (P) Ltd., and Unifour Commosale (P) Ltd. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (A.O.) issued letters under Section 133(6) to verify the genuineness of these transactions. Letters to two parties were returned undelivered, and the third party did not appear for a personal deposition. Consequently, the A.O. issued a show-cause notice to the assessee, who responded by submitting various documents, including confirmations from the creditors, their ITRs, and bank statements.

The A.O. concluded that the assessee failed to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions, and thus made an addition of ?1.16 crores under Section 68. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), who upheld the A.O.'s decision, noting that the assessee did not have an absolute right to cross-examine the Inspector or obtain the enquiry report.

The Tribunal found that the A.O. did not provide the assessee with the Inspector's report or allow cross-examination, violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal emphasized that material collected at the back of the assessee without confrontation cannot be used against them, citing Supreme Court judgments in Kishanchand Chellaram vs. CIT and M/s Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee had discharged the initial burden of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions through documentary evidence. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the authorities below and deleted the addition of ?1.16 crores.

2. Large interest expenses related to exempt income under Section 14A:
This issue was not elaborately discussed in the judgment. The primary focus was on the addition under Section 68. However, it is noted that the assessee paid interest on the loans and deducted TDS, which was not doubted by the A.O. This implies that the interest expenses were considered genuine and related to the loans received.

3. Mismatch in the amount paid to related persons under Section 40A(2)(b):
Similar to the issue under Section 14A, this matter was not the focal point of the judgment. The judgment primarily dealt with the addition under Section 68. There was no detailed discussion or analysis provided regarding the mismatch in the amount paid to related persons under Section 40A(2)(b).

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, emphasizing the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice and ensuring that any material collected at the back of the assessee must be confronted and cross-examination allowed. The addition of ?1.16 crores under Section 68 was deleted, and the assessee's documentary evidence was deemed sufficient to discharge the initial burden of proof.