2012 (9) TMI 194 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 - unsecured loans from NRI - Revenue contested genuineness of transactions on ground of rotation of funds by first lending it from OD A/c and then taking back the same as unsecured loan - contradictory statement given by assessee since affidavit of Mrs. K was filed with CIT(A) bearing notarized date of 27.2.2009 whereas on 18.12.2009, assessee stated that it will take time to file notarized affidavit from a non resident - Held that - From records it is observed that amount was transferred by Mrs K through her bank account and MRS K received these amounts from assessee s own OD A/c, from her another bank account, and from relative and other party, bank accounts of whom had been furnished. Therefore, amount is fully explained with the facts and documentary evidence. Deletion of addition upheld - Decided against Revenue

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition made on account of income from undisclosed sources.
2. Contradictory statements made by the assessee regarding the source of funds.
3. Determination of the origin of the loan amount.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Addition made on account of income from undisclosed sources
The case involved an appeal by the revenue against the deletion of an addition made on account of income from undisclosed sources. The Assessing Officer added back an amount to the assessee's income as the necessary documents were not filed despite repeated requests. The assessee argued that the amounts received were explained through various transactions. The Ld CIT(A) admitted additional evidence and deleted the addition partially, upholding the addition for the remaining amount. The Tribunal observed the trail of entries and concluded that the amounts received were fully explained with supporting documents. Consequently, the appeal by the revenue was dismissed.

Issue 2: Contradictory statements made by the assessee
The revenue argued that the assessee made contradictory statements regarding the source of funds, questioning the authenticity of the transactions. The Ld DR contended that the deletion by the Ld CIT(A) was based on contradictory statements by the assessee. However, the Ld AR argued that the entries were well explained and supported by documents. The Tribunal reviewed the evidence presented and found that the transactions were adequately explained, leading to the dismissal of the revenue's appeal.

Issue 3: Determination of the origin of the loan amount
The revenue raised concerns about the origin of the loan amount, questioning the source and timing of the funds. The Tribunal examined the details of the transactions and found that the amounts received by the assessee were adequately explained through a series of interconnected transactions. The Tribunal concluded that the funds were not from undisclosed sources and were supported by documentary evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Ld CIT(A) to delete the addition partially and dismiss the appeal by the revenue.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, finding that the amounts in question were adequately explained through legitimate transactions and supported by documentary evidence, thereby rejecting the addition made on account of income from undisclosed sources.