9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Justifiability of the addition of Rs. 32,000 under Section 68 of the IT Act, 1961. 2. Justifiability of the addition of Rs. 31,931 under Section 69A of the IT Act, 1961. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Justifiability of the addition of Rs. 32,000 under Section 68 of the IT Act, 1961: The primary issue in this case is whether the addition of Rs. 32,000 made under Section 68 of the IT Act, 1961, in the hands of the assessee company is justifiable. The assessee argued that the amount in question was advanced by Smt. Sashirekha, who was residing in the USA, and managed by her brother Shri Kamalakarreddy. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) added Rs. 32,000 to the assessee's income on the grounds that the assessee 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 appeared to be written at a stretch and not in the ordinary course of business. Despite requests, Smt. Sashirekha could not be produced for cross-examination as she resided in the USA. The ITO concluded that the money introduced in the name of Smt. Sashirekha was actually the company's own money. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal, deleting the addition of Rs. 31,931 but confirming the addition of Rs. 32,000. The CIT(A) found that the explanation provided by the assessee had serious infirmities and gaps. The CIT(A) emphasized the need for an immediate nexus between the receipt of agricultural income and the subsequent investment, which was not adequately established by the assessee. In the second appeal, the Tribunal considered the arguments and evidence presented by both sides. The Tribunal found that the assessee had established both the identity and capacity of the creditor beyond reasonable doubt. The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities did not doubt the identity of the creditor, which was established through direct evidence, affidavits, and circumstantial evidence, including bank account entries and a confirmatory letter from Smt. Sashirekha. The Tribunal emphasized that in civil matters, the standard of proof is the preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Tribunal found that the affidavit of Shri Kamalakarreddy and the sworn statement of Smt. Samanthakala were credible and should have been given due weight. The Tribunal held that the expectation of an immediate nexus between the receipt of agricultural income and the subsequent investment was not essential. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee had adequately proved the identity and capacity of the creditor and the genuineness of the transaction. 2. Justifiability of the addition of Rs. 31,931 under Section 69A of the IT Act, 1961: The second issue concerns the addition of Rs. 31,931 under Section 69A of the IT Act, 1961. The ITO made this addition on the grounds that the sum of Rs. 38,000, credited to the Savings Bank Account of Smt. Samanthakala, was unexplained. The assessee contended that this amount was given by Smt. Sashirekha for purchasing a flat. The CIT(A) found that the amount of Rs. 31,931 was borrowed by the assessee-company from Smt. Samanthakala and used to purchase a demand draft favoring Premier Engineering Corporation. The CIT(A) agreed with the assessee that the amount represented the amount drawn from Smt. Samanthakala's Savings Bank Account. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence, found that the addition of Rs. 31,931 was not justified. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided credible evidence, including bank account entries and affidavits, to explain the source of the funds. The Tribunal held that the lower authorities had erred in treating the amount as unexplained investment. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the assessee had successfully established the identity and capacity of the creditor and the genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 32,000 under Section 68 and Rs. 31,931 under Section 69A of the IT Act, 1961, were not justified. The appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee, and the additions made by the lower authorities were reversed.
|
