2022 (11) TMI 880 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 - Unexpalined cash credits - initial burden to prove the cash credits - whether assessee has discharged the initial onus to prove the cash credits by furnishing all the information to prove the three main ingredients, viz., the identity of the creditor, the credit worthiness of the creditor and the genuineness of transactions? - HELD THAT - It is settled proposition of law that the initial burden to prove the cash credits is placed upon the shoulders of the assessee u/s 68 - In order to discharge the said burden, the assessee has to prove three main ingredients, viz., the identity of the creditor, the genuineness of the transactions and the credit worthiness of the creditor. If the assessee discharges the initial burden, then the burden would shift to the shoulders of the assessing officer, i.e., it is the responsibility of the AO to disprove the claim of the assessee by bringing evidences on record. The settled proposition of law is that the requirement of invoking the provisions of sec.68 of the Act in respect of cash credits has to be decided on the basis of facts prevailing in each of the case and the answer to the question as to whether the assessee has discharged the initial onus placed upon it by proving three main ingredients. As noticed that the assessee, in the instant case, has discharged the initial onus placed upon it. AO has not rebutted the same. Accordingly, we hold that the addition made u/s 68 of the Act is not justified.

Issues:
Validity of reopening of assessment and addition made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenges the order confirming the validity of reopening the assessment and the addition of Rs.45.00 lakhs under section 68 of the Act for the assessment year 2009-10.
2. The assessing officer reopened the assessment based on information that the assessee received bogus accommodation entries of Rs.45.00 lakhs. The AO did not examine the details provided by the assessee and assessed the amount as income under section 68.
3. The assessee challenged the validity of reopening and the addition before the CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.
4. The assessee argued that it proved the cash credits by providing necessary information, but the AO did not examine the evidence and relied on a report. The request for cross-examining a witness was denied.
5. The CIT(A) upheld the addition based on Supreme Court decisions without considering the specific facts of the case, according to the assessee.
6. The Department supported the CIT(A)'s order, citing a similar case where the addition was confirmed.
7. The assessee differentiated its case from the cited precedent, highlighting the credibility of the companies involved in the transactions.
8. The Tribunal examined the documents provided by the assessee to prove the cash credits from various companies.
9. It reiterated the burden on the assessee to prove the cash credits under section 68, shifting to the AO only if the initial burden is met.
10. The Tribunal found that the assessee provided all necessary documents to prove the cash credits, while the AO failed to rebut the evidence.
11. Relying on the facts and evidence presented, the Tribunal concluded that the addition under section 68 was unjustified and directed its deletion.
12. The Tribunal emphasized that each case must be decided based on its facts, noting that the assessee successfully discharged the initial burden in this instance.
13. As the assessee succeeded on the merits, the issue of reopening the assessment was considered academic and not addressed.
14. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order and directing the deletion of the addition of Rs.45.00 lakhs under section 68.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved and the Tribunal's decision based on the facts and legal principles presented in the case.

← Previous Next →