2016 (5) TMI 758 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - disallowance of expenses - Held that - AO after duly examining written submissions audited copies of balance sheet trading and profit 35, 000/- out of expenses. Whereas on the other hand ld. CIT without examining the books of accounts and bills/vouchers during the proceedings u/s 263 returned the findings on the basis of assumptions. It is un-understandable that from the cash book ledger day book stock register audited balance sheet profit 28, 30, 711/- by the ld. CIT by impugned order is concerned it is categoric case of the assessee that it has raised fresh loan of only 1, 10, 500/- from Mohit and 50, 000/- from Rahul during the year under assessment and the balance unsecured loans were old loans raised in the earlier years. It is proved from Schedule - 3 of the audited balance sheet explaining break-up of the unsecured loans lying. Hon ble Rajasthan High Court in the judgment cited as CIT vs. Parmeshwar Bohra 2007 (1) TMI 105 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT while deciding the identical issue held that carry forward amount of the previous years did not become an investment or cash credit generated from the relevant assessment year and as such advantage of carry forward unsecured loan cannot be made u/s 68 of the Act - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of CIT under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Disallowance of proportionate interest on advances.
3. Addition of amounts under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for sundry creditors and unsecured loans.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of CIT under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The assessee challenged the CIT's jurisdiction to invoke Section 263, arguing that the original assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The Tribunal noted that the CIT's order was based on issues not raised in the original show-cause notice, violating the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal referenced judgments from the Supreme Court and High Court, emphasizing that the CIT cannot travel beyond the issues mentioned in the show-cause notice. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT's findings on the tax audit report and quantitative details were unsustainable as they were not part of the initial notice, thus denying the assessee an opportunity to be heard. On merits, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient details and documentation, which the Assessing Officer (AO) had duly examined. The CIT's direction to re-examine the books of account was deemed unnecessary and unjustified, leading to the setting aside of the CIT's order on this ground.

2. Disallowance of Proportionate Interest on Advances:
The CIT directed the AO to disallow proportionate interest on advances, arguing that the assessee could have used the funds for its own business instead of raising unsecured loans. However, the assessee had categorically stated that no interest was paid on unsecured loans during the assessment year in question. The Tribunal found that the CIT had not properly considered the assessee's submissions nor conducted an independent inquiry. Consequently, the Tribunal determined that the disallowance of interest was unjustified and ruled in favor of the assessee on this ground.

3. Addition of Amounts under Section 68 for Sundry Creditors and Unsecured Loans:
The CIT made additions of ?21,25,298/- for sundry creditors and ?28,30,711/- for unsecured loans, deeming them unexplained. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided detailed lists, copies of accounts, and confirmations for sundry creditors during the assessment proceedings, which the AO had accepted. The Tribunal also highlighted that the assessee had paid the balances due to sundry creditors in the subsequent year, further supporting the genuineness of the creditors. Regarding unsecured loans, the Tribunal observed that the majority were old loans from previous years, with only minor amounts raised during the assessment year. Citing a Rajasthan High Court judgment, the Tribunal ruled that carry-forward amounts from previous years could not be treated as cash credits for the relevant assessment year under Section 68. Therefore, the additions made by the CIT were deemed unsustainable, and the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee on this ground as well.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, setting aside the CIT's order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found that the CIT had overstepped jurisdictional boundaries, failed to consider the assessee's submissions adequately, and made unjustified additions under Section 68. The order was pronounced in open court on April 7, 2016.