2022 (9) TMI 1244 - AT - Income Tax

Additions u/s.68 - unexplained cash credits in the form of unsecured loans - HELD THAT - We concur with the view taken by the CIT(Appeals) that as not only the assessee had duly substantiated the authenticity of the transaction to the hilt on the basis of supporting corroborative documentary evidences, but it is also a fact to which we cannot be oblivion that the A.O in the present case before us had except for harping upon certain unsubstantiated allegations, had however, failed to placed on record any such material which would have refuted the authenticity of the documents that were placed on record by the assessee before him to drive home its claim of having raised genuine loans in question. We are pained to find that the A.O had not even thought it fit to refer to the material which was placed on record by the assessee in support of his aforesaid claim of having raised authentic loans from the aforementioned lenders. Accordingly we, finding no infirmity in the view taken by the CIT(A) who had rightly vacated the characterization of the loans raised by the assessee company from the aforementioned seven lenders as unexplained cash credits u/s.68 uphold the same. Thus, the Grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observation - Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of additions under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, amounting to Rs. 2,70,00,000/- as unexplained cash credits.
2. Non-appreciation of investigation and enquiries conducted by the department.
3. Reliance on certain judicial decisions by the CIT(A) without considering contrary High Court decisions.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Additions under Section 68:
The department challenged the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, amounting to Rs. 2,70,00,000/-. The assessee had claimed to have received loans from seven Kolkata-based companies during the assessment year 2013-14. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) had treated these loans as unexplained cash credits, citing that the lender companies were not found at their respective addresses and appeared to be paper companies. However, the CIT(A) observed that the assessee had provided substantial documentary evidence, including corporate details, PAN, and financial statements of the lender companies, which substantiated their identity and creditworthiness. The CIT(A) also noted that the loans were repaid with interest in the subsequent year, further establishing their genuineness.

2. Non-appreciation of Investigation and Enquiries:
The department argued that the CIT(A) failed to appreciate the outcome of the investigation and enquiries conducted by the department, which reported that the lender companies were not available at the given addresses. The CIT(A), however, found no mention of any detailed enquiry or report in the assessment order. The CIT(A) emphasized that the A.O. had not carried out any verifications or used the powers vested under sections 133(6) or 131(1) of the Act to disprove the assessee's claims. The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A), stating that the A.O. had not provided any material evidence to refute the authenticity of the loan transactions.

3. Reliance on Judicial Decisions:
The department contended that the CIT(A) erred in relying on certain judicial decisions without considering contrary High Court decisions. The CIT(A) had relied on the decisions in the cases of R.K Transport & Construction P Ltd. and R.K Ferro Alloys P Ltd. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had also considered the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of Pawan Kumar Agrawal, which supported the assessee's position. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had rightly vacated the characterization of the loans as unexplained cash credits, as the assessee had substantiated the transactions with corroborative documentary evidence.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions under Section 68, dismissing the department's appeal. It concluded that the assessee had duly substantiated the identity, creditworthiness of the lenders, and the genuineness of the loan transactions. The A.O. had failed to provide any substantial evidence to disprove the assessee's claims or to carry out necessary verifications. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue.