2025 (2) TMI 538 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 - entity creditworthiness and genuineness of transactions involving unsecured loans not proved - HELD THAT - With respect to the mentioned parties there is no basis for Ld. CIT(Appeals) to grant relief to the assessee since the creditworthiness of parties have not been proved by the assessee and therefore it is incorrect to state that the onus has shifted to the Department. It is a well settled law that judicial precedents are applicable to the particular facts of each case and cannot have general applicability. It is also a wellsettled principle of law the fact that amount has been received through banking channels does not show the genuineness of the transaction and the complete facts of the case need to be analysed. In respect of the parties in our considered view the assessee has not been able to show the creditworthiness of the parties and once it is seen that the assessee has taken substantial amounts of loan from these parties the primary onus is on the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the parties. Therefore for these parties in our considered view Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in facts and in law in allowing relief to the assessee. We have only taken note of few apparent cases where the assessee has not been able to clearly prove the creditworthiness of the parties or the genuineness of the transaction in our considered view. In other cases where the assessee has responded to notice issued under section 133 (6) of the Act or has furnished ITR declaring a reasonable amount of income or furnished further evidences of genuineness of transactions we are of the considered view that Ld. CIT(Appeals) has correctly allowed relief to the assessee. In cases where assessee has specifically filed reply in response to notice under Section 133(6) of the Act i.e. in cases of Hanuman Prasad P. Jain Ketan V. Tembhurkar J.P. Co. P.J. Patel Varsha Mohanlal Nagar Nitinbhai K. Shah Sarveshdevi Sureshkumar Chauhan and Ashok as given in Annexure A filed before us we are of the view that relief may be granted to the assessee and additions confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) may be deleted. However with respect to other unsecured loans taken by the assessee with respect to other parties as provided in Annexure A referred to above in the interest of justice the matter may be restored to the file of Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The Tribunal considered several core legal questions in the appeals filed by both the Department and the Assessee:

Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 11,54,94,016/- out of the total addition of Rs. 14,81,68,666/- made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act by the Assessing Officer (AO).
Whether the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the facts brought on record by the AO in the assessment order and remand report.
Whether the AO erred in making an addition on account of non-submission of PAN numbers amounting to Rs. 2,95,71,691/-.
Whether the AO erred in making an addition of Rs. 31,02,959/- due to non-clearance of cross-examination of other parties.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Deletion of Addition by Ld. CIT(A)

Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 68 of the Income Tax Act requires the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions involving unsecured loans.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal analyzed whether the Ld. CIT(A) appropriately granted relief to the assessee by deleting the addition made by the AO. The Ld. CIT(A) relied on the fact that credits were received through banking channels and that the assessee provided necessary information like PAN and ITR copies.
Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal examined the evidence submitted by the assessee, including PAN, ledger confirmations, and ITRs. However, it found that in many cases, the creditworthiness of the parties was not adequately established.
Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal noted that merely receiving amounts through banking channels does not prove the genuineness of transactions. The primary onus is on the assessee to prove the creditworthiness of the parties.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Department argued that the Ld. CIT(A) granted relief without new evidence. The assessee contended that it had discharged its onus by providing necessary documents.
Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in granting relief for certain parties where creditworthiness was not proven. It partially allowed the Department's appeal by reinstating some of the additions.

Issue 2: Addition Due to Non-submission of PAN

Legal Framework and Precedents: The requirement to provide PAN numbers is crucial for verifying the identity of creditors under the Income Tax Act.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal considered whether the assessee provided sufficient evidence to justify the deletion of the addition related to non-submission of PAN.
Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee provided PAN and ITR details for some parties during the appellate proceedings, which were not available during the assessment.
Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal found that where the assessee provided PAN and responded to notices under section 133(6), relief could be granted.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Department maintained that the absence of PAN justified the addition, while the assessee argued that it had since provided the necessary details.
Conclusions: The Tribunal allowed partial relief to the assessee by deleting additions for parties where PAN was subsequently provided.

Issue 3: Addition Due to Non-clearance of Cross-examination

Legal Framework and Precedents: The right to cross-examine is an essential part of ensuring the fairness of proceedings under the Income Tax Act.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal assessed whether the AO's addition due to non-clearance of cross-examination was justified.
Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal found no infirmity in the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision to uphold the addition for parties where cross-examination was not cleared.
Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal concluded that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of these parties.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee did not press this ground, effectively conceding the addition.
Conclusions: The Tribunal upheld the addition related to non-clearance of cross-examination.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Tribunal emphasized that the mere receipt of funds through banking channels does not establish the genuineness of transactions or the creditworthiness of creditors.
The Tribunal held that the primary onus is on the assessee to prove the creditworthiness of parties from whom substantial loans are claimed to have been received.
The Tribunal allowed partial relief to the assessee where PAN and ITR details were provided, demonstrating the identity and potential creditworthiness of creditors.
The Tribunal reinstated some additions where the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence of creditworthiness.
The Tribunal upheld the addition related to non-clearance of cross-examination, as the assessee did not contest this ground.
The Tribunal remanded certain matters back to the AO for de-novo consideration, ensuring due process and opportunity for the assessee to present evidence.

← Previous Next →