2015 (10) TMI 536 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained cash credits - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - CIT (A) while deleting the addition in respect of the addition made on account of loan from Ankur Diamond has noted that Ankur Diamond is a creditor for goods of M. Kantilal & Co., of which assessee is a partner and that the amount of credit is fully explained and is only a book entry. However before us no material in the form of evidence like copies of bill, ledger account as appearing in their respective books etc. has been placed on record by assessee which could get support to the findings of Ld. CIT (A). Similarly in respect of deletion of addition of amount received from Megh Mayur Reality Pvt. Ltd., CIT (A) has held that the entry is from sale of land and is fully explained. We however find that apart from other details which could support the findings of Ld. CIT (A) the translated copy of sale deed is not on record. With respect to loan of ₹ 2,00,50,000/- from Dhirubhai Savani, on pursing the copy of Balance sheet of Dhirubhai Savani, which has been placed at page 31 of the paper book, it is seen that the amount is stated to be receivable from Pravinbhai M. Patel . There is no material on record to show that whether Pravinbhai M. Patel that is reflected in the Balance sheet of Dhirubhai Savani refers to the assessee or it refers to some other person. Considering the totality of the aforesaid facts and more so the indifferent approach of the assessee, we are of the view that the issue with respect to the addition of the aforesaid parties needs to be reexamined at the end of the Assessing Officer. - Decided in favour of revenue for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
- Addition of unexplained cash credits
- Failure of the assessee to provide necessary details and attend hearings

Issue 1: Addition of unexplained cash credits

The case involved the Revenue appealing against the order of the Ld. CIT (A) regarding the addition of a significant amount on account of unexplained cash credits. The Assessing Officer had determined the total income of the assessee at a much higher figure due to the unverified nature of the cash credits. The assessee failed to provide essential details such as confirmations, agreements with creditors, and names of partners. The Assessing Officer concluded that the identity and creditworthiness of the loan creditors were not established, leading to the addition of a substantial amount to the income. However, the Ld. CIT (A) deleted the addition by citing relevant case laws and emphasizing that the assessee had provided necessary details like names, addresses, PAN, bank pass-books, and IT returns of the depositors, which established the genuineness of the transactions. The Ld. CIT (A) also highlighted specific entries like those from M/s. M. Kantilal Exports and Megh Mayur Reality Pvt. Ltd., which were explained and supported by evidence. The Ld. CIT (A) concluded that the loans could not be treated as bogus based on the evidence provided.

Issue 2: Failure of the assessee to provide necessary details and attend hearings

During the proceedings, it was noted that the assessee did not appear for the hearings despite previous adjournments and a direction to pay a cost imposed by the Bench. The conduct of the assessee was deemed apathetic towards the judicial process, as evidenced by the failure to file all required documents and the absence of crucial evidence before the Tribunal. The Tribunal expressed dissatisfaction with the incomplete submission of documents by the assessee, which hindered a comprehensive review of the case. Additionally, specific details regarding certain transactions were found to be missing, such as the translated copy of a sale deed. Due to the indifferent approach of the assessee and the incomplete evidence presented, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for reexamination, emphasizing the need for a thorough review and cooperation from the assessee. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to grant adequate hearing opportunities and warned that a failure to provide necessary details could lead to a decision based solely on the available material.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of unexplained cash credits and the failure of the assessee to provide essential details and attend hearings. The decision highlighted the importance of establishing the genuineness of transactions and the need for cooperation in judicial proceedings. The Tribunal upheld the appeal of the Revenue for statistical purposes, remitting the issue back to the Assessing Officer for further examination.