2020 (11) TMI 639 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowing notional interest on loans taken - CIT-A confirmed addition interest paid to various parties related to the Bhanwarlal Jain Group on the accommodation entries of loans and thus justified and addition - HELD THAT - As decided in own case AO has disallowed interest while framing assessment on the loans taken in the earlier assessment year which stands deleted by the co-ordinate bench, therefore the addition on account of disallowance of interest in the subsequent year can not be sustained on the same loans and accordingly the addition is ordered to be deleted. The first ground raised by the assessee is allowed. CIT(A) directing the AO to add commission expenses incurred on alleged unaccounted loans to the income of the assessee which has resulted in the enhancement of income without giving proper notice - HELD THAT - Since the addition made on account of unsecured loans has been deleted therefore, the issue of charging commission expense is a consequential and can not be sustained.

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of notional interest on loans.
2. Enhancement of income due to unaccounted commission expenses.
3. Addition of unexplained cash credits.
4. Disallowance of interest under the Income Tax Act.
5. Notional addition on account of alleged commission.
6. Scrutiny selection under CASS and related issues.
7. Reliance on external reports and statements without cross-examination.
8. Independent findings by CIT(A) and reliance on previous orders.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Notional Interest on Loans:
The primary issue in ITA No.2953/M/2018 for A.Y. 2012-13 was the confirmation of notional interest of ?44,95,618/- by the CIT(A) as made by the AO on loans taken in earlier assessment years. The assessee argued that these loans were from entities belonging to the Bhanwarlal Jain Group. The AO had disallowed the interest on these loans, considering them bogus. However, the Tribunal noted that the identical issue had been decided in favor of the assessee in earlier years (ITA No.2641, 2480 & 2388/M/2018), where it was held that the assessee had discharged the initial burden of proving the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the transactions. Consequently, the addition on account of disallowance of interest was ordered to be deleted.

2. Enhancement of Income Due to Unaccounted Commission Expenses:
The second issue involved the CIT(A) directing the AO to enhance the income of the assessee by computing unaccounted commission expenses on loans from the Bhanwarlal Jain Group. Following the Tribunal's earlier decision, which deleted the addition of unsecured loans, the issue of charging commission expense was deemed consequential and unsustainable. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the additions made towards disallowance of interest and estimation of commission.

3. Addition of Unexplained Cash Credits:
In ITA No.3109/M/2019 for A.Y. 2013-14, the issue was the confirmation of an addition of ?50,00,000/- by the CIT(A) on account of unexplained cash credits, representing a loan from Daksha Diamond, an entity related to the Bhanwarlal Jain Group. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided necessary evidence such as loan confirmation, bank statements, and TDS certificates. Following the earlier decision, the Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the initial burden of proof, and the addition made by the AO was deleted.

4. Disallowance of Interest Under the Income Tax Act:
Another issue in ITA No.3109/M/2019 was the disallowance of interest amounting to ?19,22,671/-. The AO had disallowed the interest on the grounds that the loans were bogus. However, following the Tribunal's earlier decision, which found the transactions genuine, the disallowance of interest was ordered to be deleted.

5. Notional Addition on Account of Alleged Commission:
The AO had made a notional addition of ?1,10,000/- on account of alleged commission by invoking Section 69C of the Act. This was based on the statement of Shri Bhanwarlal Jain, who admitted to charging a commission on accommodation entries. The Tribunal, referencing its earlier decision, held that since the transactions were genuine, the addition for commission was also unsustainable and directed the AO to delete it.

6. Scrutiny Selection Under CASS and Related Issues:
The assessee argued that the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS, and the issue of unsecured loans was not covered under CASS. This argument was raised in both appeals but was deemed general in nature and did not require separate adjudication.

7. Reliance on External Reports and Statements Without Cross-Examination:
The assessee contended that the AO relied on reports and statements from the DGIT(Inv.) and individuals from the Bhanwarlal Jain Group without providing the assessee an opportunity for cross-examination. The Tribunal's decision to delete the additions implicitly addressed this concern, as it found the transactions genuine based on the evidence provided by the assessee.

8. Independent Findings by CIT(A) and Reliance on Previous Orders:
The assessee argued that the CIT(A) did not independently evaluate the case and merely copied orders from previous cases involving the Bhanwarlal Jain Group. The Tribunal's decision to follow its earlier rulings and delete the additions indicates that the CIT(A)'s reliance on previous orders was not deemed sufficient to uphold the additions.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed both appeals of the assessee, directing the deletion of additions related to notional interest, unexplained cash credits, disallowance of interest, and notional commission expenses. The decisions were primarily based on earlier rulings in the assessee's favor, which found the transactions genuine and the initial burden of proof discharged by the assessee.

← Previous Next →