2022 (10) TMI 1261 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment and issue of notice u/s. 148 - information from the Investigation wing - addition u/s 68 - reason to believe - HELD THAT - We are of the view that since the assessee has claimed to have substantial loan from a party which was found to be bogus. Therefore, under these circumstances, prima facie, these facts are sufficient for forming a belief that taxable income has escaped assessment. We are further of the view that at the stage of reopening, the only requirement is that the AO should have some tangible material facts which can form the basis to believe that income has escaped assessment and at that stage it is not to be established beyond reasonable doubt that such amount of income had already escaped assessment. Therefore, the objections so raised by the assessee were rightly rejected by the AO and upheld by CIT(A). We find no reason to interfere into the lawful finding so recorded by the CIT(A) and further the assessee has not put forth any material which compel us to deviate from the findings recorded by the CIT(A). Thus, while concurring with the findings of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue, we dismiss Ground of the assessee. Unsecured loans - We find that disallowance made u/s 68 of the Act by the lower authorities has no merit and we do not concur with the findings of the ld. CIT(A) as the assessee has proved the identity and creditworthiness of the party from whom the amount was received and genuineness of the transaction. In this view of the matter, the ground of the assessee are allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Reopening of assessment and issue of notice under Section 148.
2. Addition under Section 68 for unexplained cash credits.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Reopening of Assessment and Issue of Notice under Section 148:

The assessee challenged the reopening of assessment for the years 2012-13 and 2013-14, arguing that the notice under Section 148 was issued solely based on information from the Investigation Wing without the Assessing Officer (AO) applying his own mind. The Tribunal noted that the AO must have an independent "reason to believe" that income has escaped assessment, which cannot be based on borrowed satisfaction. In this case, the AO relied on information from a search action against Mr. Vipul Vidur Bhatt, who admitted to providing bogus accommodation entries. The Tribunal observed that the AO's reliance on such information, without further independent analysis, rendered the reopening of assessment as lacking legal basis. However, the Tribunal upheld the reopening due to the presence of tangible material facts suggesting income escapement, dismissing the assessee's ground on this issue.

2. Addition under Section 68 for Unexplained Cash Credits:

For the assessment year 2012-13, the AO added Rs. 80,00,000 to the assessee's income, treating loans from four entities as unexplained cash credits under Section 68. The AO's decision was based on the statement of Mr. Vipul Vidur Bhatt, who admitted that these entities were used for providing accommodation entries. The assessee provided confirmations, affidavits, and financial statements to establish the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditors. The Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing sufficient evidence, including bank statements showing transactions through banking channels and repayment of loans within the same financial year. The Tribunal held that the AO failed to disprove the evidence and relied solely on the investigation report without further material. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting the addition of Rs. 80,00,000.

For the assessment year 2013-14, a similar addition of Rs. 54,50,000 was made by the AO, based on loans from M/s Shyam Alcohol & Chemicals Ltd. The Tribunal applied the same reasoning as for the previous year, noting that the assessee had provided adequate evidence to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor and the genuineness of the transaction. The Tribunal found no justification for the addition and allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting the addition of Rs. 54,50,000.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals, upholding the reopening of assessments but deleting the additions under Section 68 for both assessment years, as the assessee successfully demonstrated the genuineness of the loan transactions and the creditworthiness of the creditors.