2021 (1) TMI 1003 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained cash credit u/s 68 - loan taken from M/s. Annapurneshwari Rice Industries a partnership firm and one Mr. Nagaraj is a partner of this firm - HELD THAT - Without examining Mr. Nagaraj, it is not possible to conclude that the sum which was added as unexplained cash credit in the hands of the assessee is unexplained cash credit. If on examination of Mr. Nagraj, admits having given ₹ 20 lakhs then the addition in question cannot be sustained. In such an event the assessee should be considered to have explained the source of the credit. In the set aside assessment it will not be permissible to examine the source of Mr. Nagaraj as that would amount to examining source of source. With these observations, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and allow the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
Whether the addition of a loan amount as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was justified.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-7, Bengaluru, for Assessment Year 2016-17. The primary issue was whether the Revenue authorities were justified in adding a sum of ?20 lakhs, obtained as a loan from M/s. Annapurneshwari Rice Industries, as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee, an individual engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading, had shown the loan in the books of accounts. The AO, upon investigation, found that the cash deposited by M/s. Annapurneshwari Rice Industries into their bank account was subsequently deposited by the assessee back into the same account. This led the AO to conclude that the loan amount was actually the assessee's own money routed through the firm.

In response to the AO's findings, the assessee explained that he had approached the partner of M/s. Annapurneshwari Rice Industries for a loan, and the partner had sent an employee to deposit the cash into the firm's account. The assessee denied that the deposited amount was his own money, emphasizing that he was merely facilitating the transaction. The AO, however, questioned the firm's capacity to lend ?20 lakhs based on its income declarations from previous years. Consequently, the AO treated the loan amount as unexplained cash credit and added it to the assessee's income under section 68 of the Act. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, leading to the present appeal by the assessee.

During the appeal hearing, the assessee argued that the identity, capacity, and genuineness of the transaction were established, warranting the reversal of the addition. The key contention was that without examining the partner of M/s. Annapurneshwari Rice Industries, no definitive conclusions could be drawn. The ITAT, after considering the submissions, agreed that the absence of examination of the partner was a crucial gap. It was deemed essential to ascertain from the partner whether the loan was indeed provided. Without such verification, the addition of unexplained cash credit could not be upheld. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order, allowing the appeal for statistical purposes. The ITAT directed the AO to conduct further proceedings, affording the assessee an opportunity to present their case.

In conclusion, the ITAT's decision highlighted the significance of verifying the source of funds and the necessity of examining relevant parties to establish the legitimacy of transactions. The judgment emphasized the importance of due diligence in assessing unexplained cash credits and underscored the principle of providing a fair opportunity for parties to present their case in tax proceedings.