2025 (2) TMI 397 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 - advances received from its holding company - onus to prove the identity creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction - admission additional evidences - HELD THAT - Since the relevant information is already submitted by the assessee in the form of additional evidences before the CIT (A) which CIT(A) has failed to acknowledge the same. In the result we are inclined to allow the above claim made by the assessee. Inventory list which is listed at Item No.3 the assessee has submitted that these are additional costs incurred by the assessee which assessee has inadvertently listed as separate item of inventory which is otherwise should have been apportioned. Since this requires certain verification we deem it fit and proper to remit this issue back to the file of AO with limited direction to verify the correctness of the claim of the assessee. Addition made u/s 68 observed that the assessee has received advances from its holding company for purchase of the abovesaid lands and invested the funds received from its holding company in the inventories and the inventories were actually acquired by the assessee in FY 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 and assessee has carried on the above inventories until the current assessment year without there being any movement. Since the funds were invested in earlier assessment year and also assessee has shown the source of the above funds there is no requirement for initiation of section 68 under the present circumstances. We observed that the transaction under consideration is made by the assessee section 68 cannot be invoked - Decided in favour of assessee.

2008 (3) TMI 91 - HC

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core issues considered in this judgment include:

Whether the addition of Rs. 3,12,41,144/- to the assessee's income by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was justified.
Whether the assessee provided adequate documentation to justify the inventories and the advances received under the collaboration agreement.
Whether the principles of natural justice were violated due to the lack of a show-cause notice and opportunity to be heard.
Whether the application under Rule 46A was improperly ignored by the appellate authority.
Whether the provisions of Section 115BBE and the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271AAC were applicable in this case.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Justification for Addition under Section 68

Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 68 of the Income Tax Act pertains to unexplained cash credits, which allows the AO to add unexplained credits to the income of the assessee. The precedent cited was CIT vs. Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd., where it was held that Section 68 cannot be invoked for credit balances from previous years.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal observed that the funds received from the holding company were used to acquire inventories in earlier assessment years (FY 2005-06, 2006-07, and 2007-08). Since these were not fresh credit entries for the year under consideration, Section 68 was not applicable.
Evidence and Findings: The assessee had declared inventories and corresponding liabilities in its balance sheet. The Tribunal found that the assessee had demonstrated the source of funds and their application in prior years.
Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the precedent from the Usha Stud case, concluding that the AO's addition under Section 68 was unwarranted as the transactions did not pertain to the assessment year in question.
Conclusion: The Tribunal ruled that the addition under Section 68 was not justified and should be deleted.

Issue 2: Adequacy of Documentation and Justification of Inventories

Evidence and Findings: The assessee provided additional evidence under Rule 46A, including sale deeds and explanations for discrepancies in inventory listings. The Tribunal noted that the CIT (A) failed to consider these additional evidences.
Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentation to justify the inventories and advances, and the CIT (A)'s failure to consider this was an oversight.
Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claims regarding the inventories, directing the AO to verify the correctness of the claims related to additional costs.

Issue 3: Violation of Principles of Natural Justice

Arguments: The assessee argued that the AO did not provide a show-cause notice or reasonable opportunity to present its case, violating principles of natural justice.
Conclusion: The Tribunal did not explicitly address this issue but implicitly acknowledged procedural lapses by allowing the additional evidence and remanding certain issues for verification.

Issue 4: Ignoring Rule 46A Application

Arguments: The assessee contended that the CIT (A) improperly ignored the application under Rule 46A, which allows for the admission of additional evidence.
Conclusion: The Tribunal recognized the oversight and considered the additional evidence submitted by the assessee, leading to the allowance of certain claims.

Issue 5: Applicability of Section 115BBE and Penalty Proceedings under Section 271AAC

Arguments: The assessee argued against the applicability of Section 115BBE and the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271AAC.
Conclusion: The Tribunal did not specifically address these sections, but the overall findings negated the basis for such penalties by ruling the addition under Section 68 unjustified.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Core Principles Established: The Tribunal reinforced the principle that Section 68 cannot be applied to credit entries from previous years, aligning with the precedent set in CIT vs. Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd.
Final Determinations: The Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the deletion of the addition under Section 68 and remanding certain issues for verification by the AO.
Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: "Since it is a finding of fact recorded by the CIT(A) that this credit balance appearing in the accounts of the Assessee, does not pertain to the year under consideration, under these circumstances, the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the impugned addition under Section 68 of the Act."

← Previous Next →