2025 (4) TMI 739 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 - unexplained loan transactions - A.O. held that it is an arranged financial transaction that there is a pattern of equal and cash/bank deposits immediately prior to the issue of cheques for the alleged unsecured loan transactions - HELD THAT - All transactions either done through cheques or RTGS payments only and the assessee seems to have maintained good balance in his accounts. Thus the assessee discharged his primary onus of establishing identity genuineness and creditworthiness of the loan transactions. Whereas the AO mainly on the ground of Investigation Report the unsecured creditors are shell companies and not responded to the notices issued u/s.133(6) of the Act treated his entire unsecured loans as not genuine and not explained to the satisfaction. The Assessing Officer also held that the lender companies showed meagre income in the ITR cannot be the reasons for making addition in the hands of the assessee. The fact that these creditors shown low income does not imply that they could not advance money to anyone. The financial affairs are not in the control of the assessee and the assessee has nothing to do with the balance sheet or financials or directors of these companies. When the assessee has repaid the loans within a period of 30 to 32 days that too through banking channels there is no question of making addition u/s. 68 of the Act. See MERRYGOLD GEMS PVT. LTD. 2024 (6) TMI 1371 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT and M/S. OJAS TARMAKE PVT. LTD. 2023 (9) TMI 845 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT - Decided in favour of assessee.

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:

Whether the addition of Rs. 90 lakhs as unexplained income under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was justified.
Whether the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions with the loan creditors were adequately established by the assessee.
Whether the principles of natural justice were violated by the Assessing Officer (AO) in gathering evidence without providing the assessee an opportunity to respond or cross-examine.
Whether the transactions should be considered genuine given that the loans were repaid within the same financial year through banking channels.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

1. Addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 68 of the Income Tax Act mandates that any sum found credited in the books of an assessee, for which no satisfactory explanation is offered, may be charged as income. The burden is on the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the creditors.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal emphasized that the mere transaction through banking channels is not conclusive of genuineness. The AO and CIT(A) relied on precedents like CIT Vs Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. to assert that identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness must be established beyond mere documentation.
Key evidence and findings: The AO found a pattern of financial transactions suggesting that the loans were not genuine, noting immediate cash deposits prior to the issuance of cheques. The CIT(A) upheld the addition, citing incomplete responses to notices and negative findings from the investigation.
Application of law to facts: The Tribunal found that the assessee provided sufficient documentation, including confirmations, bank statements, and ITRs of the creditors, and that the loans were repaid within a short period through banking channels.
Treatment of competing arguments: The Tribunal considered the AO's reliance on investigation reports but found that the assessee had discharged the primary onus of proof. The Tribunal also noted that the AO did not provide an opportunity for the assessee to counter the evidence or cross-examine witnesses, which was against natural justice principles.
Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the addition under Section 68 was not justified as the assessee had adequately proven the genuineness of the transactions, and the loans were repaid promptly within the same financial year.

2. Violation of Natural Justice Principles

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The principles of natural justice require that parties be given an opportunity to respond to evidence and cross-examine witnesses. The assessee cited the Supreme Court's decision in Andaman Timber Industries vs. Comm. Of Central Excise to argue that the AO's actions were contrary to these principles.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal agreed that the AO's failure to provide the assessee an opportunity to rebut the gathered evidence or cross-examine witnesses was a violation of natural justice.
Conclusions: The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument regarding the violation of natural justice and considered it a factor in deciding to delete the addition.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: "The assessee discharged his primary onus of establishing identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the loan transactions. Whereas the Assessing Officer mainly on the ground of Investigation Report, the unsecured creditors are shell companies and not responded to the notices issued u/s. 133(6) of the Act treated his entire unsecured loans as not genuine and not explained to the satisfaction."
Core principles established: The Tribunal reinforced that transactions conducted through banking channels, especially when loans are repaid within the same financial year, should not automatically be deemed non-genuine without substantive evidence to the contrary.
Final determinations on each issue: The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 90 lakhs under Section 68 was not justified and directed its deletion. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed, emphasizing adherence to natural justice and the sufficiency of evidence provided by the assessee.

← Previous Next →