2022 (2) TMI 1199 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 - bogus unsecured loans - search and seizure operation conducted on the residential and business premise of the PKJ and on the basis of evidences recovered and statements of various persons recorded, Assessing Officer observed that it was found that PKJ was not doing any genuine business activity and was engaged in the activity of providing accommodation entries - HELD THAT - The search and seizure operation u/s. 132(1) was conducted in Mangal Group of cases on 01.10.2013 it is relevant to note that Mangal group is owned by Shri Mangal jain and Shri Ajit Jain and family members and they hold major shares and directorship in companies of Mangal group. Assessee is also part of Mangal group which is owned by Shri Mangal Jain and others. In the case of Mangal group, Assessing Officer observed that assessee made additions related to transactions with PKJ group by way unsecured loans/ share application money/bogus purchases. We observed that in the instant case also assessee made similar additions which is relating to unsecured loans and it is pertinent to note that the above said unsecured loans were repaid during the assessment year or in subsequent Assessment Years - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeals filed by Revenue against different assessees of the same group for AY 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2014-15; Treatment of unsecured loans as income under section 68 of the Income Tax Act; Disallowance of interest paid on unsecured loans; Burden of proof on genuineness of transactions; Compliance with legal precedents in similar cases.

Analysis:
The appeals were consolidated as the issues raised were identical. The case involved a search and seizure operation under section 132(1) of the Act in the group's companies. The Assessing Officer treated unsecured loans as income under section 68, which the assessee contested before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) allowed the appeal, relying on a precedent involving similar circumstances.

The Revenue challenged the Ld.CIT(A)'s decision on various grounds, including the treatment of unsecured loans and interest disallowance. The Revenue argued that the onus is on the assessee to prove the genuineness of transactions, citing specific legal precedents. The Revenue highlighted findings from the search operation and the modus operandi of providing accommodation entries.

In response, the assessee pointed out distinctions in the facts of the case and emphasized the repayment of unsecured loans. The assessee relied on the Ld.CIT(A)'s findings and a precedent involving a director of the group companies. The Ld.CIT(A) had considered the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions.

After considering the submissions and the material on record, the Tribunal observed similarities with a previous case and dismissed the Revenue's grounds. The Tribunal found the Ld.CIT(A)'s decision judicious and in line with the precedent. The Tribunal dismissed all grounds raised by the Revenue in the appeals for different assessment years involving similar issues.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Ld.CIT(A)'s decision, citing consistency with a previous case and the proper evaluation of the evidence. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed for all the assessees involved.