2022 (8) TMI 357 - AT - Income Tax

Addition on account of cash credits u/s 68 and 69A read with section 115BBE - advances received from related/identifiable and assessed parties, who had made certain advance payments on different dates from 1.4.2016 to 18.10.2016 in small installments and, later on, sales were made to such parties and the advances so received were adjusted against the sales to such parties - HELD THAT - Neither any confirmation nor any evidence of they being assessed to tax has been furnished and, as such, the identity, genuineness of the transactions and creditworthiness have not been proved and, therefore, we have no hesitation in confirming the said addition of Rs. 1,20,000. Thus, this ground of appeal is dismissed. Addition for parties who have advanced different amounts have filed confirmed copies of account mentioning their PAN, address, affidavits duly attested and evidence of filing their Tax Returns along with cash summary for the Financial Year 2016-17 which confirms the transactions of the assessee, both with regard to the advance amount paid by each of the related concerns which was subsequently adjusted against the sales made to these four parties and also, on account of the deposit of cash by each one of them on various dates towards the Housing Loan of the assessee to the tune of Rs. 48.50 lacs. Such evidences, as furnished, have not been doubted by the AO and even the sales as made by the assessee to the four relates parties against the advance of Rs. 28 lacs received earlier, have not been doubted, nor purchases in the hands of such related parties have been doubted in their hands. Thus, the opening stock, purchases, sales and closing stock in the hands of the assessee have been accepted by the Assessing Officer and the books of accounts of the assessee have also not been rejected u/s 145(3) of the Act and as such the entries relating to the related parties in effect stand accepted and, as such, the confirmation of the two additions i.e. both in regard to the amount of Rs. 28 lacs and Rs. 48.50 lacs are not justified. Also three HUFs who have independent identity and are being assessed and carrying the business, they have out of their independent sources made the cash deposits in the housing loan and in this regard they have furnished the necessary proof in respect of the amount deposited in the Housing Loan accounts of the assessee and, thus, the source of source also stands justified and just because such parties were not co-borrowers, the addition as made by the AO and confirmed by the NFAC is not justified and therefore, we have no hesitation in deleting the same. Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs. 1,20,000/- on account of cash receipts from Sh. Deepak Sharma and Sh. Suresh Kumar.
2. Addition of Rs. 28,00,000/- in respect of advances received from identifiable parties.
3. Addition of Rs. 48,50,000/- on account of repayment of housing loan.
4. Invoking of provisions of Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition of Rs. 1,20,000/- on account of cash receipts from Sh. Deepak Sharma and Sh. Suresh Kumar:
The assessee received Rs. 60,000/- each from Sh. Deepak Sharma and Sh. Suresh Kumar, which was added under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee failed to provide confirmations, PAN numbers, or any other evidence proving the identity, genuineness, or creditworthiness of these transactions. Consequently, the Tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs. 1,20,000/- as the required proofs were not furnished.

2. Addition of Rs. 28,00,000/- in respect of advances received from identifiable parties:
The assessee received advances from four related parties, which were later adjusted against sales. The Tribunal noted that the assessee provided confirmed copies of accounts, PAN numbers, affidavits, and evidence of tax returns for these parties. The Assessing Officer did not doubt these documents or the sales and purchases recorded. The Tribunal referenced the case of "Kalaneedhi Jewellers LLP" and other judgments, concluding that the addition of Rs. 28,00,000/- was not justified as the transactions were genuine and supported by documentary evidence. Therefore, this addition was deleted.

3. Addition of Rs. 48,50,000/- on account of repayment of housing loan:
The assessee's housing loan was repaid using funds from three HUFs: Arun Garg & Sons HUF, Varun Garg & Sons HUF, and Pawan Kumar & Sons HUF. The assessee provided confirmed copies of accounts, affidavits, and tax returns for these HUFs. The Tribunal found that the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of these transactions were established. The Tribunal referenced the case of "Hira Panna Jewellers" and other judgments, concluding that the addition of Rs. 48,50,000/- was not justified. Therefore, this addition was deleted.

4. Invoking of provisions of Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
Since the Tribunal deleted the additions of Rs. 28,00,000/- and Rs. 48,50,000/-, the invocation of Section 115BBE was not applicable to these amounts. The Tribunal did not find any justification for invoking this provision.

Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed. The Tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs. 1,20,000/- but deleted the additions of Rs. 28,00,000/- and Rs. 48,50,000/-, thereby rejecting the invocation of Section 115BBE for these amounts. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of documentary evidence and the need to avoid decisions based on mere suspicion.

← Previous Next →