2021 (11) TMI 745 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 on unsecured loans - HELD THAT - Loans from directors and group entities and the assessee had filed requisite documents to substantiate these transactions during remand proceedings - AO has also accepted these transactions in the remand proceedings - assessee has discharged the primary onus as required u/s. 68. Therefore, the additions have rightly been deleted by Ld. CIT(A) and no interference is required to that extent. Remaining additions we find that the assessee has merely filed confirmations and no other documents have been filed by the assessee in support of the transactions. AR has submitted that these loans were procured from the market as per the requirement - onus to prove the genuineness of the same is on the assessee. Therefore, with respect to these 11 parties, we remit the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to the assessee to file requisite documentary evidences to establish the genuineness of the same. Advances u/s. 69 - Assessee made advances towards purchase of land to various parties which were added by Ld. AO as unexplained investments - HELD THAT - The investments made by the assessee are part of regular books of accounts and therefore, the same could not be held to be unexplained investment u/s. 69. The ground raised by the revenue stand dismissed. Amount paid for land - HELD THAT - The onus was on AO to supply to impounded documents to the assessee along with an opportunity to cross-examine Shri Sanjay Sonawane. In fact, no statement was recorded from Shri Sanjay Sonawane and therefore the additions were unsustainable in terms of the decision of M/s. Andaman Timber Industries 2015 (10) TMI 442 - SUPREME COURT . In the absence of any corroborative evidence and without affording opportunity of cross-examination, the addition could not be made. Finally, the additions were deleted against which the revenue is in further appeal before us. We find that the issue has been clinched very correctly by Ld. CIT(A). The allegation of Ld. AO as well as consequent addition made in the hands of the assessee has no legs to stand. The additions are based on surmises and presumptions without there being any corroborative evidence on record. The adverse material has never been confronted to the assessee and the allegations of cash payment are bereft of any concrete evidence on record. Hence, the adjudication do not call for any interference on our part. The ground raised by the revenue stand dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in restricting the addition of unsecured loans?
2. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition in respect of advances?
3. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition in respect of land purchase transactions?

Analysis:

Unsecured Loans u/s. 68:
The assessee received unsecured loans totaling &8377; 158.47 Lacs, with a specific loan of &8377; 27 Lacs from 11 parties. While confirmations were provided for these loans, other supporting documents were not submitted. However, loans amounting to &8377; 131.47 Lacs were received from directors and group entities, with necessary documents provided. The CIT(A) found the primary onus to prove identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness was met for these loans, following the decision in CIT Vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. The CIT(A) rightly deleted these additions. For the remaining &8377; 27 Lacs, the matter was remitted back to provide additional evidence.

Advances u/s. 69:
Advances of &8377; 131.95 Lacs towards land purchase were added as unexplained investments by the AO. However, these transactions were through banking channels and recorded in the regular books of accounts. The CIT(A) correctly noted that Sec. 69 did not apply in this case, leading to the deletion of these additions.

Amount Paid for Land:
An amount of &8377; 195 Lacs was added u/s. 69B based on loose papers found during a survey, indicating cash payment for land purchase. The CIT(A) emphasized the need for corroborative evidence and cross-examination, citing legal precedents. As no such opportunity was provided, the additions were deemed unsustainable. The revenue's appeal on this issue was dismissed.

In conclusion, the revenue's appeal was dismissed, while the assessee's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. The CIT(A)'s decisions were upheld, emphasizing the importance of meeting the burden of proof and providing necessary documentation to substantiate transactions.