9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Justifiability of the addition of Rs. 32,000 under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Justifiability of the addition of Rs. 31,931 under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Justifiability of the addition of Rs. 32,000 under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961: The primary issue in this appeal is whether the addition of Rs. 32,000 made under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the hands of the assessee-company is justifiable. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) added this amount on the grounds that the assessee-company failed to establish the identity, capacity of the creditor, and the genuineness of the transaction. The ITO noted that the ledger account in the name of Smt. Sashirekha was written at a stretch and seemed not to have been written in the ordinary course of business. Despite the assessee providing the address of Smt. Sashirekha in the USA and other supporting documents, the ITO justified the addition by stating, "The assessee-company has not established the identity, capacity of the creditor and genuineness of the transaction." The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], while partly allowing the appeal, confirmed the addition of Rs. 32,000. The CIT(A) held that the explanation furnished by the assessee suffered from serious infirmities and gaps, making it difficult to acquiesce in the version of the assessee. The CIT(A) emphasized the necessity of an immediate nexus between the receipt of agricultural income and the subsequent investment, which was not adequately established by the assessee. Upon further appeal to the ITAT, the Tribunal found that the assessee was able to establish both the identity and capacity of the creditor beyond reasonable doubt. The Tribunal noted that the identity was established through direct evidence, affidavit evidence, circumstantial evidence from bank entries, a confirmatory letter from Smt. Sashirekha, and the ledger account maintained by the assessee-company. The Tribunal emphasized that in civil matters, it is the preponderance of probabilities rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt that is required. The Tribunal disagreed with the CIT(A)'s demand for an immediate nexus between agricultural income and investment, stating that the investment can be spread over a period of time. The Tribunal concluded that the onus to prove the genuineness of the cash credit was adequately discharged by the assessee and that the addition of Rs. 32,000 as undisclosed income was not justified. 2. Justifiability of the addition of Rs. 31,931 under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961: The second issue involves the addition of Rs. 31,931 made under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as unexplained investment. The ITO made this addition based on the credit of Rs. 38,000 in the Savings Bank Account of Smt. Samanthakala, which was claimed by the assessee to be given by Smt. Sashirekha for purchasing a flat. The ITO disbelieved the assessee's version and added Rs. 31,931 to the income of the assessee-company. Upon appeal, the CIT(A) found that the amount of Rs. 31,931 was borrowed by the assessee-company from Smt. Samanthakala and that the said amount was used to purchase a Demand Draft favoring Premier Engineering Corporation. The CIT(A) agreed with the assessee's explanation and deleted the addition of Rs. 31,931. In conclusion, the ITAT found that there was believable evidence on record to establish the identity of the cash creditor, her capacity to lend the amount of Rs. 32,000, and the transactions entered in the account books of the company. Therefore, the Tribunal reversed the findings of the lower authorities regarding the addition of Rs. 32,000 and allowed the appeal, concluding that the amount should not be treated as undisclosed income of the assessee under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act.
|
