2012 (11) TMI 627 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained Cash Credits - Whether CIT(A)erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- made on account of unexplained cash introduced, when the assessee as well as creditor failed to prove creditworthiness of the creditor - Held that - Assesse explained the source before the Assessing Officer and if the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation regarding sources in the hands of the buyer then action could have been taken against such buyer and the assessee cannot be saddled with the burden to prove the sources in the hands of the purchaser of the property. The theory of casting of burden to prove the sources of source may not be applicable in case of cash creditor where it can be shown that creditor has deposited the cash in his bank account and given loan to a particular person because it can be argued that such person may have given the cash but this theory cannot be applied in case of sale purchase transaction of the property because no person would give the money to other person to show the same as being received back as advance particularly after the execution of agreement to sell. The Assessing Officer is directed to pass on the information to the concerned Assessing Officer for taking appropriate action in the case of Shri Bakhtawar Singh(purchaser) to examine the source of investment of Rs. 15.00 lakhs which is in dispute - CIT(A) has very correctly decided the issue after taking all precautions and nothing wrong with the order of the ld. CIT(A) and the same is confirmed - In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- made on account of unexplained cash introduced.
2. Creditworthiness of the creditor.
3. Admissibility of additional evidence under Rule 46A.
4. Sufficient opportunity to produce evidence during assessment proceedings.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Deletion of Addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- Made on Account of Unexplained Cash Introduced
The Revenue questioned whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- made on account of unexplained cash introduced when both the assessee and the creditor failed to prove the creditworthiness of the creditor. The Assessing Officer (AO) had added the sum to the income of the assessee under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act due to the failure to furnish details of the property, agreement to sell, and the address of the prospective buyer.

Issue 2: Creditworthiness of the Creditor
During the assessment proceedings, the AO found that the assessee had shown a cash receipt of Rs. 15.00 lakhs as an advance for the sale of a plot. The assessee claimed that the amount was an advance from Shri Bakhtawar Singh for the sale of a godown. However, the AO was not satisfied with the creditworthiness of the creditor as the sources of funds were not satisfactorily explained. Despite the creditor's statement that the funds came from the sale of poplar trees, agricultural savings, and remittances from his sons, the AO found these explanations insufficient due to lack of proper documentary evidence.

Issue 3: Admissibility of Additional Evidence Under Rule 46A
The CIT(A) admitted additional evidence such as the copy of the ledger, agreement to sell, cancellation agreement, and affidavit of the purchaser, which were not initially presented before the AO. The AO, in the remand report, argued that these additional pieces of evidence should not be admitted under Rule 46A as the assessee had already been given sufficient time to produce such evidence during the assessment proceedings.

Issue 4: Sufficient Opportunity to Produce Evidence During Assessment Proceedings
The AO contended that the assessee did not provide sufficient evidence during the assessment proceedings. However, the assessee argued that all relevant details were provided in a letter to the AO, and further verification from the buyer was requested. The CIT(A) sent the additional evidence for remand, during which the creditor appeared before the AO and confirmed the transaction. The CIT(A) found that the identity and genuineness of the transaction were established, and any issues with the creditor's creditworthiness should be addressed by the AO of the creditor, not the assessee.

Conclusion:
The CIT(A) concluded that the addition made under Section 68 was not justified as the identity and genuineness of the transaction were proved, and any issues regarding the source of funds should be pursued against the creditor. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the details were filed, and the transaction was confirmed during remand proceedings. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, confirming the CIT(A)'s order and directing that any further action regarding the source of funds be taken against the creditor.

Result:
The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.