2022 (5) TMI 775 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 - genuineness of the credits - Unexplained investment by a partner - HELD THAT - Even the genuineness of the credits is very doubtful as there is apparently no reason, nor any stands put forward at any stage, for the cash introduction by the partners, who could have introduced capital in the firms books through the banking channel, and more so, particularly considering the cash availability with them is not shown. Further, there is no justification for holding cash by them for months, if not years, together. That the source thereof is stated to be a loan further adds to its un-creditibility inasmuch as nobody would, normally speaking, take loan only to be held in bank or as cash-in-hand. Partners, being businessmen rather, understand the time value or the opportunity cost of money much more than non-businessmen, while, the said conduct defeats the very purpose of loan/borrowing, said to be interest bearing. The affidavit by the partners (not on record), would only operate as a confirmation from them and, thus, only proves their identity, while, as afore-discussed, both the capacity and the genuineness are highly suspect and, therefore, rightly doubted and found as not satisfactorily explained by the Revenue. Rather, the partner/s, being a related person, an assessee ought to be able even the personal details, normally not accessible for other creditors, in support of it s claims. The legal position stands examined in Jagmohan Ram Chandra 2004 (8) TMI 46 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT also referring to its previous decisions in the matter, as well as in Kishorilal Santoshilal 1995 (2) TMI 14 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT , both relied upon by the ld. CIT(A), in considerable detail. The decision by the jurisdictional High Court in Metachem Industries 1999 (9) TMI 21 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT is not in any manner supportive of the assessee s claims, rather, making it clear, and unless the credit is established, be it from a partner or from another, it would attract s. 68. Appeal of assessee dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Breach of principles of natural justice.
2. Non-admission of additional evidence under rule 46A.
3. Rejection of books of account and estimation of income.
4. Additions under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Breach of Principles of Natural Justice:
The assessee argued that proper opportunity of being heard was not provided by the Assessing Officer (AO). The firm had shifted its office from Chhindwara to Nagpur, making it difficult to produce the books of account within a day. However, the Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to state this fact during the assessment proceedings and did not participate in the proceedings after 18/11/2009. The Tribunal found the plea to be an afterthought and concluded that the AO rightly invoked section 144 due to the assessee's non-cooperation.

2. Non-Admission of Additional Evidence under Rule 46A:
The assessee contended that the first appellate authority erred in not admitting additional evidence. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) allowed the assessee an opportunity to furnish additional evidence in the interest of justice but ultimately rejected the application on merits, citing the assessee's deliberate non-production of accounts. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the additional evidence was not substantiated and the assessee failed to establish its case under rule 46A.

3. Rejection of Books of Account and Estimation of Income:
The AO rejected the assessee's books of account and estimated the income by applying a profit rate of 2.5% on the turnover, following a previous Tribunal order in a similar case. The Tribunal observed that the assessee did not produce the books of account despite multiple opportunities and found the AO's estimation reasonable. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) confirmed the rejection of books and estimation of income, emphasizing that the assessee treated the process lightly and failed to produce any valid reason for non-production of books.

4. Additions under Section 68:
The assessee challenged the additions made under section 68 for unexplained cash credits from two new partners. The Tribunal analyzed the evidence and found the assessee's explanations unsubstantiated. The assessee failed to produce ledger accounts, bank statements, or any concrete evidence to prove the availability of cash with the partners. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's claims were contradictory and lacked credibility. The CIT(A) had relied on various judicial decisions to conclude that the onus under section 68 was not discharged by the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings, stating that the assessee's case was without substance and the additions were rightly confirmed.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, upholding the rejection of books of account, estimation of income, and additions under section 68. The plea of breach of natural justice was found to be an afterthought, and the non-admission of additional evidence was justified due to the assessee's deliberate non-cooperation. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of substantiating claims with concrete evidence and found the assessee's explanations lacking in credibility.

← Previous Next →