2022 (8) TMI 903 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 - Unexplained sundry creditors - HELD THAT - Amount was received through circular trading from Compact Agencies to M/s. SSK Ispat and Power Ltd., to the assessee. In this transaction, AO was unable to verify by issuing notice u/s.133(6) to the party. So accordingly, the addition was made u/s.68. Appellate Authority during the appeal proceedings did not take proper consideration to verify this party in respect of this transaction. Lack of verification was adjudicated by the ld. CIT(A). Where the existence credentialism of the party in question the section 68 will start to play. In any case, un-verified sundry creditors cannot be allowed for deletion of Section 68. So, accordingly, the addition is setting aside to the ld. CIT(A) for further adjudication considering the above-mentioned discussion of ITAT. Needless to mention that the assessee should get a reasonable opportunity for redressal of the grievance. Appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition of Rs.7,52,48,754 on account of sundry creditors.
2. Verification of transactions and genuineness of sundry creditors.
3. Application of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
4. Lack of proper consideration during appeal proceedings.
5. Setting aside the addition for further adjudication.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Addition of Rs.7,52,48,754 on account of sundry creditors
The appeal was filed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) rejecting the addition amount related to sundry creditors. The major sundry creditor, M/s. Compact Agencies Pvt. Ltd., was under scrutiny for incomplete verification, leading to the addition made by the ld. AO under Section 68. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the addition, prompting the Revenue to file an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.

Issue 2: Verification of transactions and genuineness of sundry creditors
The ld. CIT (DR) highlighted discrepancies in the assessment order, indicating that the assessee inflated sundry creditors to evade tax scrutiny. The genuineness of the transactions was questioned, and the ld. CIT(A) observed circular trading activities involving Compact Agencies and SSK Ispat, leading to doubts about the authenticity of the transactions.

Issue 3: Application of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
The ld. AO invoked Section 68 to treat the unverified sundry creditors as unexplained cash credits due to lack of satisfactory explanation from the assessee regarding the nature and source of the transactions. The Tribunal emphasized that unverified sundry creditors cannot be allowed for deletion under Section 68, stressing the importance of verifying the existence and credibility of the parties involved.

Issue 4: Lack of proper consideration during appeal proceedings
During the hearing, it was noted that the ld. CIT(A) did not adequately verify the transactions involving Compact Agencies and SSK Ispat, leading to the setting aside of the addition for further adjudication. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of proper verification and consideration of all relevant factors before making decisions on tax matters.

Issue 5: Setting aside the addition for further adjudication
The Tribunal concluded that the addition amount related to sundry creditors should be set aside for further adjudication by the ld. CIT(A), emphasizing the importance of providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity for redressal of grievances. The appeal of the Revenue was allowed for statistical purposes, highlighting the need for a thorough examination of the transactions and parties involved in tax assessments.

This detailed analysis of the legal judgment highlights the key issues, arguments, and decisions made by the Appellate Tribunal regarding the addition of sundry creditors and the application of relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961.