2023 (6) TMI 1205 - AT - Income Tax

Assessment u/s 153A - Addition u/s 68 - unexplained cash credit - Burden of proof - HELD THAT - As assessee has filed all the bank statements and ledger account of creditors, evidencing receipts and refund of unsecured loans. The factual matrix of the case indicates that the assessee has discharged its initial onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness and the genuineness of transaction by filing necessary details as an additional evidences which have been duly accepted by the CIT(A) and necessary remand reports have been called for in accordance with the laid down procedure of law. No incriminating material was brought on record by the AO during the opportunity provided to him to examine and investigate based on the additional evidences. Admittedly, loans were repaid, during this relevant assessment year itself. The date of receipt of the loan was 06/2013 and the date of repayment was 03/2014 which is much before the date of search i.e. 13.09.2015. Due interest has been paid and tax on payment of interest was also deducted as per law. Thus, it can be held that the requirement of law like identity, credit capacity and genuineness of transaction is satisfied by the assessee. Hence, the addition made by the Assessing Officer is deleted and the ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- made by AO as unexplained cash credit under Section 68.
2. Admission of additional evidence by CIT(A) without giving AO an opportunity to object.
3. Failure of AO to verify the source and genuineness of the funds during remand proceedings.

Summary:

Issue 1: Deletion of Addition of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- as Unexplained Cash Credit
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- made by the AO regarding unexplained cash credit. The AO had added this amount under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, citing the assessee's failure to provide satisfactory explanations and supporting documents during the assessment proceedings. The assessee contended that the loans were received through banking channels and repaid within the same financial year. The CIT(A) found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions, including bank statements, confirmations from lenders, and audited financial statements. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the AO did not present any incriminating material during the remand proceedings to counter the assessee's evidence.

Issue 2: Admission of Additional Evidence by CIT(A)
The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) admitted additional evidence without giving the AO an opportunity to object, violating Rule 46A. The CIT(A) had admitted additional evidence to verify the authenticity of the transactions and called for a remand report from the AO. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) followed due procedure by seeking a remand report and providing the AO an opportunity to examine the additional evidence. The Tribunal found no procedural irregularity in the CIT(A)'s approach and upheld the deletion of the addition.

Issue 3: Failure of AO to Verify Source and Genuineness During Remand Proceedings
During the remand proceedings, the AO failed to verify the complete bank statements of the lenders and raised doubts about their financial capacity to lend the amounts in question. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided comprehensive evidence, including bank statements and financial records of the lenders, proving the transactions' genuineness and the lenders' creditworthiness. The Tribunal concluded that the AO did not present any substantial evidence to disprove the assessee's claims and upheld the CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s order that deleted the addition of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- made by the AO as unexplained cash credit under Section 68. The Tribunal found that the assessee had satisfactorily discharged its burden of proof regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions, and the AO failed to present any incriminating evidence during the remand proceedings.