2024 (7) TMI 1535 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained cash credit u/s 68 - unexplained unsecured loans - disallowance of interest paid on such alleged unsecured loans - whether the asseessee has placed sufficient material to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the cash creditors and genuineness of the transactions, we need to examine each of the documents filed in relation to each of the alleged cash creditors? - HELD THAT - We find that ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition u/s 68 either on account of wrong PAN or no PAN or just confirmed on the basis of analysis of AO. After going through the details, we are satisfied that the assessee has successfully explained the identity and creditworthiness of the cash creditors and genuineness of the transactions with sufficient evidences and that nature source of the alleged cash credit is explained to our satisfaction and therefore, provisions of section 68 are not attracted. Similar type of issue had come up before this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Parwati Lakh Udyog 2023 (10) TMI 190 - ITAT KOLKATA wherein also loans from individual/other persons were taken but since complete details regarding PAN, Bank statement, financial statement and income tax returns details were filed, addition u/s 68 of the Act was deleted. We after thoroughly examining the details filed by the assessee are satisfied with nature and source of alleged cash credit and the same having been explained to our satisfaction and thus set aside the filing of CIT(Appeals) and delete the impugned addition made u/s 68 and also delete the disallowance of interest confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals), which was paid by the assessee to the alleged cash creditors. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Addition of Rs. 1,26,50,000/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act for unexplained cash credits from eight parties.
2. Disallowance of interest expenditure related to the alleged unexplained cash credits.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition under Section 68 for Unexplained Cash Credits:

The primary issue in this appeal was the addition of Rs. 1,26,50,000/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act by the Assessing Officer (AO), which was partly confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The AO concluded that the unsecured loans from 31 parties, amounting to Rs. 3,23,00,000/-, were unexplained cash credits due to inadequate responses to notices under Section 133(6). The CIT(A) upheld the addition for eight parties totaling Rs. 1,26,50,000/- due to issues such as wrong or missing PANs.

Upon review, the Tribunal examined the evidence provided by the assessee, including income tax returns, bank statements, and financial statements for each of the eight parties. It was found that:

- Mukund Chhaparia (Rs. 20,00,000/-): The Tribunal noted that he was a regular tax assessee with sufficient income and maintained regular bank balances, thus proving his creditworthiness.

- Anju Chowdhury (Rs. 20,00,000/-): The Tribunal found that she had a capital balance of approximately Rs. 1.86 crores and regular banking transactions, thus confirming her ability to provide the loan.

- Murari Lal Bharatiya (Rs. 10,00,000/-): With a declared income of Rs. 14,53,140/-, the Tribunal saw no reason to doubt the legitimacy of the loan.

- Premchand Gupta HUF (Rs. 10,00,000/-): The Tribunal found the details provided, including tax assessments, sufficient to establish the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transaction.

- Sharda Devi Sarawgi (Rs. 5,00,000/-): Her income and bank statements were consistent with the loan amount, and the loan was repaid, negating the applicability of Section 68.

- Bansal Traders (Rs. 11,50,000/-): The Tribunal noted that the proprietor, Mr. Raj Kumar Bansal, had a significant turnover, affirming the genuineness of the transaction.

- Zori Varieties (Rs. 25,00,000/-): The Tribunal found that the business was genuine with regular funds, thus the loan was legitimate.

- Ganpati Developers Pvt. Ltd. (Rs. 25,00,000/-): Despite the initial issue of no PAN, the Tribunal found the company regularly assessed to tax with substantial business activities, thus justifying the loan.

The Tribunal concluded that the assessee had successfully demonstrated the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions for all eight parties, thereby negating the applicability of Section 68. The Tribunal referenced similar cases where complete documentation led to the deletion of additions under Section 68.

2. Disallowance of Interest Expenditure:

The second issue was the disallowance of interest expenditure amounting to Rs. 9,45,564/- related to the alleged unexplained cash credits. The Tribunal, after confirming the legitimacy of the loans, also found that the interest paid on these loans was genuine. The interest was paid through banking channels with tax deducted at source, and no discrepancies were noted by the AO. Therefore, the disallowance of interest was deleted.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order and deleting both the addition of Rs. 1,26,50,000/- under Section 68 and the disallowance of interest expenditure. The Tribunal's decision was based on the thorough examination of evidence provided by the assessee, demonstrating the legitimacy of the loans and related interest payments. The appeal was pronounced in favor of the assessee on 02/07/2024.