2021 (10) TMI 779 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 - unsecured loan - unexplained cash credit - addition made as no proof to identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions - HELD THAT - The said loans have been received by the assessee by way of either account payee cheque or RTGS and the assessee has also paid interest to the creditor as well. The assessee has also cleared off by making repayment of the loans and advances received from the aforesaid four parties in the subsequent assessment year hence, in our view, the AO was indeed not justified in making the addition on account of unsecured loan as unexplained under section 68 - notice from the aforesaid which becomes clear that the assessee has discharged the primary onus by proving the identity of the creditor, genuineness of the transaction as well as the creditworthiness of the creditors. The loan so obtained was not only reflected in the respective books of account and also bank statements - We are of the view that Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in deleting the addition made by the AO. Consequently, we uphold the order of the learned CIT(A) by dismissing the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue.

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the unsecured loan of ?1,69,00,000/- should be treated as genuine.
2. Whether the interest on the unsecured loans amounting to ?13,63,294/- should be considered as unexplained expenditure.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Treatment of Unsecured Loan of ?1,69,00,000/-

The Revenue challenged the order of the CIT(A) which treated the unsecured loan of ?1,69,00,000/- as genuine. The Assessing Officer (AO) had initially treated these loans as income from unexplained sources, arguing that the assessee failed to establish the genuineness and creditworthiness of the lenders. The AO's position was based on the findings of the Kolkata Investigation Directorate, which identified the lenders as paper companies involved in providing accommodation entries.

The assessee, a builder engaged in the "Shalimar Fortleza" project, received unsecured loans from four parties. The AO questioned the creditworthiness of these parties, stating that mere submission of confirmation letters was insufficient. The AO also noted that the companies had been conclusively proven to be paper entities with no real financial strength.

In response, the assessee provided extensive documentation, including confirmation letters, bank statements, income tax returns, and financial statements of the lender companies. The assessee argued that the primary onus of proving the genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness of the lenders was discharged. The assessee also pointed out procedural lapses by the AO, such as issuing summons at the last moment and not providing adequate opportunity for response.

The CIT(A) found that the assessee had adequately proven the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditors. The CIT(A) noted that the AO had not thoroughly examined the documents submitted by the assessee and had not taken the investigation to a logical conclusion. The CIT(A) also emphasized that the loans were repaid before the assessment was completed, and the lenders' financial statements supported their creditworthiness.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the assessee had discharged the primary onus by providing sufficient evidence of the lenders' identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, concluding that the addition of ?1,69,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 could not be sustained.

Issue 2: Interest on Unsecured Loans Amounting to ?13,63,294/-

The second issue involved the addition of ?13,63,294/- towards interest on the unsecured loans, which the AO had reduced from the expenses transferred to the Work in Progress. The CIT(A) found that since the loan amounts were genuine, the interest payments could not be considered unexplained expenditure. The interest was paid through account payee cheques, with applicable TDS deducted and certificates issued to the lenders. The lenders had also filed their income tax returns, validating the TDS claims.

The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the interest payments were justified and should not be treated as unexplained expenditure. Consequently, the addition of ?13,63,294/- was deleted, and the grounds of appeal related to this issue were allowed in favor of the assessee.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to treat the unsecured loan of ?1,69,00,000/- as genuine and to delete the addition of ?13,63,294/- towards interest on the loans. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee had adequately proven the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions, and the procedural lapses by the AO further weakened the Revenue's case. The order was pronounced in the open court on 27.09.21.

← Previous Next →