9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (3) TMI 522 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 68 - loan received treated as unexplained credit in the book of accounts of the Appellant - Admission of additional evidence - HELD THAT - Transaction under consideration is unsecured loan transaction. Similar loan transaction with the same lender was accepted as genuine in the assessment proceedings for the immediately preceding assessment year (i.e., Assessment Year 2012-13) after scrutiny assessment. Assessing Officer and CIT(A) have not doubted the identity of the lender. The Appellant had contended that the day-to-day operations of the proprietorship concern were managed by her husband who passed away after prolonged illness on 14.01.2017, i.e., few months after passing of the Assessment Order. Even if the documents filed by the Appellant before CIT(A) are considered to be additional evidence as alleged by the Assessing Officer, though the CIT(A) has not held so while disposing off the appeal, the Tribunal would not, in our view, be precluded to consider the same. Accordingly, in view of the above, we accept the contention of the Appellant that the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) erred in making/confirming addition in the hands of the Appellant under Section 68 - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Addition based on statements of Shri Gautam Jain. 2. Opportunity for cross-examination of Shri Gautam Jain. 3. Addition of loan amount of INR 40,00,000/-. 4. Genuineness of evidence and transaction. 5. Levy of interest under Section 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234D. 6. Levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c). Summary of Judgment: Issue 1: Addition based on statements of Shri Gautam Jain The Appellant contended that the Assessing Officer erred in making additions based on the statements of Shri Gautam Jain, who did not specifically allege that the Appellant was a beneficiary. The Tribunal noted that the statement of Shri Gautam Jain did not reference MGPL or the Appellant. The Tribunal concluded that the statement alone could not be the sole basis for the addition. Issue 2: Opportunity for cross-examination of Shri Gautam Jain The Appellant argued that the Assessing Officer did not provide an opportunity for cross-examination of Shri Gautam Jain. The Tribunal found that the statement was not provided to the Appellant, and no opportunity for cross-examination was granted, which was necessary since the addition was primarily based on this statement. Issue 3: Addition of loan amount of INR 40,00,000/- The Assessing Officer added INR 40,00,000/- as unexplained credit under Section 68 of the Act, claiming the loan from MGPL was non-genuine. The Tribunal observed that the Appellant had provided sufficient documentation, including bank statements and financial records, to substantiate the genuineness of the loan transaction. The Tribunal held that the Appellant had discharged the initial onus, and the Revenue failed to provide contrary evidence. Issue 4: Genuineness of evidence and transaction The Tribunal noted that the Appellant had submitted various documents to prove the genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness of MGPL. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer did not conduct any independent inquiry to disprove the Appellant's claims and relied solely on the statement of Shri Gautam Jain. Therefore, the addition was not justified. Issue 5: Levy of interest under Section 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234D The Tribunal disposed of this ground as being infructuous, considering the deletion of the primary addition. Issue 6: Levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) The Tribunal disposed of this ground as premature since the penalty proceedings were contingent on the outcome of the primary addition, which was deleted. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeals for both Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15, deleting the additions made under Section 68 of the Act and disposing of the related grounds as either infructuous or premature. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of providing an opportunity for cross-examination and conducting independent inquiries to substantiate claims of non-genuineness.
|
