2020 (12) TMI 498 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 - sundry creditors whose balance were outstanding as of the end of the previous year - HELD THAT - The quantity and value of purchases formed part of the audited accounts, quantitative details, gross profit margin and also various accounting ratios of the appellant. In the report furnished by the tax auditor in Form 3CA, no adverse comments or qualifications have been given in this regard. Further no specific infirmity or defect has been pointed out by the AO in respect of the books of accounts of the appellant. In the confirmation letter placed clarified by Shri Saugata Bhowal, proprietor of M/s. Bajrang Traders that his proprietorship concern had been closed down due to financial problems so it can be presumed that it was the reason why the AO's notice u/s. 133(6) could not be served upon it, so no adverse view was warranted against this sundry creditor. Other two sundry creditors M/s. Lhaki Steels and Rolling Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Bhutan Rolling Mills were non-residents and had been duly served the notice issued by AO u/s. 133(6) of the Act, and they both have already furnished their confirmation to have received the balance amount from assessee by RTGS/NEFT. - no addition was warranted u/s. 68 of the Act and therefore direct the deletion of addition - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Confirmation of addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Background and Initial Assessment:
The appeal was filed against the order confirming the addition of ?35,34,509 under section 68 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2014-15. The case was selected for scrutiny due to large sundry creditors compared to low net profit.

2. Assessing Officer's Action:
The Assessing Officer found three creditors who did not respond to the Section 133(6) notice. Despite confronting the assessee, unsatisfactory replies led to the addition.

3. Decision by CIT(A):
The CIT(A) upheld the addition, shifting the burden to the assessee to prove the genuineness of the creditors. Lack of satisfactory responses led to adverse inference.

4. Appellant's Arguments:
The appellant argued that the transactions were routine trade credits, not money credited in books. Citing Delhi High Court precedent, they contended that section 68 did not apply.

5. Merits of the Addition:
The appellant highlighted details of each creditor, showing payments made and accounts settled. Foreign entities were involved, and one creditor had closed due to financial constraints.

6. Adverse Inference and Burden of Proof:
The Assessing Officer was satisfied with 84% of creditors but doubted three. The appellant provided evidence of transactions and closures, challenging the adverse inference.

7. Judgment and Ruling:
Considering the evidence presented, including confirmations and transaction details, the Tribunal found no grounds for the addition under section 68. The appeal was allowed, and the addition of ?35,34,509 was directed to be deleted.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the lack of grounds for the addition under section 68 based on the evidence provided regarding the genuineness of the transactions and creditors involved.