9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (10) TMI 1001 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 68 - unexplained cash credits - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT - It is not the case that loan creditros refused to have advanced the amount of loan to the assessee rather the assessee through documentary evidences proved that the amount of loan was received through account payee cheques and income-tax returns of the loan creditors were also provided. Thus, source of loan was duly established by the assessee. The assessee had properly discharged the onus lying on it by furnishing various supporting documents moreso when the loan as recieved by the assessee was only related to the directors of the assessee. Thus, the Assessing Officer was not justified in adding the said amount of loan to the total income of the assessee. Further, the Revenue could not bring any contrary material on record to rebut the findings of the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the addition on account of loan taken from directors was rightly deleted by the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we confirm the action of the ld. CIT(A) on this point. Addition on account of loans received - AO added the loan as received from the said society on the ground that directors of the assessee, their family members and friends are the office bearers/promoters of the society and further confirmation, ITR, Bank statement and PAN of the loan creditor was not provided - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT - From the perusal of the copy of account of the society in the books of accounts of the assessee for the year under consideration and vice-versa and also for the subsequent year filed by the assessee reveals that the assessee had repaid entire amount of loan as taken from the society in the subsequent year. We find that the assessee had duly filed its copy of account in the books of the society which was also tallied with the copy of account of the society in the books of accounts of the assessee, therefore, the copy of account of the assessee in the books of the society is the confirmation itself which was filed by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings AO was not justified in observing that confirmation was not filed by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings - CIT(A) rightly noted that the addition on account of overdraft loan as taken by the assessee made by the assessing officer was neither correct nor proper as the account balance of the loan account was duly confirmed and filed during the course of the assessment proceedings. Thus, it is clear that the onus required to be discharged with respect to identity, genuineness and creditworthiness was duly discharged by the assessee and moreso the transaction is part of the regular overdraft account maintained by the assessee with the society. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the ld. CIT(A). We confirm the same on this point - Decided against revenue. Rejection of books of accounts - estimation of income - Notional addition to the total income of the assessee by adopting a net profit rate of 8% on the amount of total construction expenses as incurred by the assessee - HELD THAT - assessee had raised bills to the land owners from time to time on the basis of terms of its agreement and on the basis of stage of completion as agreed upon by the assessee with the land owners. Further, we are of the view that there was no law for maintaining project wise separate sets of books of account but what is necessary is to calculate seperate project-wise profit and the assessee had properly maintained details of expenses as incurred for particular project and the same was controlled through cost centre. Thus, the books of account as rejected by the Assessing Officer for this ground was not correct. CIT(A) observed that remaining amount of expenses as incurred by the assessee on the project were shown by it as closing work-in-progress for which bills were subsequently raised in the next year and the same were also offered to tax and as such, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO - CIT-DR could not controvert the findings of the ld. CIT(A) by bringing any contrary material on record. AO was not justified in estimating the income at 8% on the amount of total cost of project even when the said amount included as incurred for its own project in form of cost of land and development expenses as incurred. Thus, the addition made to the total income of the assessee was rightly deleted by the ld. CIT(A). We confirm the action of the ld. CIT(A) on this point - ground raised in the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Disallowance of claim of loss by the assessee - AO after adjusting the other income disallowed the loss on the ground that the books of account have been rejected and profit has been estimated - CIT(A) deleted the addition - HELD THAT - CIT(A) allowed the loss on the ground that the assessee had properly maintained its books of accounts and the same was also examined by the Assessing Officer himself as the assessing officer passed detailed order after considering the books of accounts produced before him. Hence, there was no justification for the Assessing Officer to further disallow loss as claimed by the assessee in its return of total income. Even before us, the Revenue could not controvert the finding of the ld. CIT(A) by bringing any contrary material on record. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A).
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition of ?2,42,25,698/- on account of unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Deletion of addition of ?61,84,343/- after rejection of books of accounts. 3. Allowance of loss claim of ?2,84,555/- by the assessee. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Deletion of Addition of ?2,42,25,698/- on Account of Unexplained Cash Credits under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act: The Revenue challenged the deletion of the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, arguing that the assessee failed to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transactions. The AO had added the amounts received from the directors of the assessee company as unexplained cash credits. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting that the assessee had provided sufficient documents to justify the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the loan creditors, including PAN details, confirmation letters, and income tax returns. The AO did not make further inquiries from the respective AOs of the loan creditors and instead added the amounts due to the absence of bank statements. The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the assessee had discharged its primary onus by providing necessary documentation. The Tribunal referenced various judicial pronouncements, including CIT vs Metachem Industries and CIT vs Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd, which supported the view that once the assessee provides sufficient evidence, the burden shifts to the Revenue to disprove the claims. The Tribunal concluded that the AO was not justified in making the addition without further investigation. 2. Deletion of Addition of ?61,84,343/- after Rejection of Books of Accounts: The AO had rejected the books of accounts and estimated the income by applying a net profit rate of 8% on the total construction expenses, leading to an addition of ?61,84,343/-. The AO's rationale was that the assessee did not maintain project-wise separate books of accounts and had a significant increase in closing work-in-progress (WIP). The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting that the assessee had properly accounted for the expenses and WIP. The assessee had raised bills for the work done and offered the corresponding income for tax in the subsequent years. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the AO's estimation was not justified as the assessee had maintained adequate records and the expenses were properly capitalized. The Tribunal agreed with the Ld. CIT(A), stating that the AO's rejection of books was not warranted as the assessee had provided detailed explanations and documentation. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's method of accounting for WIP and billing was consistent and accepted in subsequent assessments. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was rightly deleted. 3. Allowance of Loss Claim of ?2,84,555/- by the Assessee: The AO had disallowed the loss claim of ?2,84,555/- on the grounds that the books of accounts were rejected and profit was estimated. The Ld. CIT(A) allowed the loss claim, stating that the assessee had maintained proper books of accounts, which were examined by the AO. The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the AO had no justification to disallow the loss claim as the books of accounts were properly maintained and scrutinized. The Tribunal found no contrary material presented by the Revenue to dispute the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). Conclusion: The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, with the Tribunal confirming the Ld. CIT(A)'s decisions on all grounds. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of proper documentation and the need for the AO to conduct thorough investigations before making additions under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
|
