2025 (3) TMI 292 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 - unexplained unsecured loans received - HELD THAT - Before the AO the assessee filed all the details at the very fag end of the assessment proceedings in the month of March when the time barring limit was about to expire and the AO has to complete the assessment on 31.03.2016. In the instant case to establish the creditworthiness certain details were asked by the AO since October 2015 however after expiry of almost 5 months part of these details were filed before the ld AO leaving no time to AO to examine all the details to find out the creditworthiness of the creditors. AO was not provided sufficient opportunity to examine the details filed by the assessee before him nor the additional details filed before the ld CIT(A) were confronted by the CIT(A) before reaching to the conclusion that all lender companies have creditworthiness and deleted the addition. Therefore in the interest of justice the matter is set aside to the file of the AO with a direction that all the documents be examined and decide the matter in accordance with law. Appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

The appeal in this case was filed by the revenue against an order passed by the ld CIT(A)-23, New Delhi dated 18.07.2018 in appeal No. 146/2017-18 for AY 2013-14. The core issue revolved around the addition of Rs. 32,11,00,000 made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 143(3) as unexplained unsecured loans received by the assessee during the financial year 2012-13. The revenue contended that the genuineness and creditworthiness of the parties providing the loans were not established by the assessee.The ld CIT(A) had deleted the addition after considering the submissions and materials filed by the assessee, stating that the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction were proven by sufficient material. The revenue revised the grounds of appeal during the assessment proceedings, emphasizing the failure of the assessee to provide complete details regarding the creditworthiness of the lenders. The revenue argued that the documents submitted did not adequately prove the creditworthiness of the lender companies.The revenue further contended that the confirmations provided by the parties lacked complete addresses and PAN details, and the signatories were not authorized persons. Additionally, the financial statements of the companies showed meager income, raising doubts about their creditworthiness. The revenue requested the matter to be remanded to the AO for a detailed examination of the documents.On the other hand, the assessee's representative supported the ld CIT(A)'s order, asserting that all relevant details were submitted to establish the creditworthiness of the lender companies. The representative highlighted that the transactions were made through the banking channel and the companies were regularly assessed for tax, indicating the genuineness of the transactions.The Tribunal reviewed the submissions and materials on record, noting that the assessee had filed details on multiple occasions. The Tribunal observed that the documents submitted by the assessee included confirmations, ledger accounts, bank statements, and balance sheets of the creditors. The ld CIT(A) had relied on these documents to conclude that the lender companies had creditworthiness.However, the Tribunal found that the AO was not provided sufficient opportunity to examine all the details submitted by the assessee before reaching a conclusion. The Tribunal set aside the decision and remanded the matter to the AO for a thorough examination of the documents to determine the creditworthiness of the lenders. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee should be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard in the matter.Ultimately, the appeal of the revenue was allowed for statistical purposes, and the decision was pronounced in open court on 27/02/2025.