2017 (11) TMI 387 - AT - Income Tax

Addition of unsecured loans - proof of identity of creditors - Held that - In the present case, the return of income of the creditors would show that they have declared small income and paid meagre tax. In their bank accounts, there was meagre bank balance prior to giving loan to the assessee and cash have been deposited immediately before giving loan to the assessee. Further, assessee failed to produce any of the creditor before A.O. for examination to verify genuineness of transaction. Therefore, assessee failed to prove identity of the creditors, their creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction in the matter. - Decided against revenue. Bogus purchases - Held that - Assessee has specifically explained the discrepancy in noting the purchases material into Kg or MT. Proper bills have been produced on record to justify the contention of the assessee. The A.O. and Ld. CIT(A) have however, not given any finding on the same. It would, therefore, show that the matter requires reconsideration at the level of the A.O. Accordingly, set aside the orders of the authorities below and restore this issue to the file of the A.O. with a direction to re-decide this issue by verifying the facts from the invoices by appreciating the explanation of assessee. In case, A.O. has any doubt, he could have verify the facts from the concerned parties as per Law. Difference in closing stock - Held that - In view of the above findings and material available on record and same opening stock shown in next year clearly supports the explanation of assessee that there is no difference in the valuation of the closing stock. The addition is without any justification. Accordingly, set aside the orders of the authorities below and delete the addition of ₹ 2,02,466. This ground of appeal of assessee is allowed.

Summary

Issues: Unsecured Loans, Bogus Purchases, Difference in Closing Stock

Issue No.1 - Unsecured Loans:
The assessee received unsecured loans from various individuals, but failed to prove their identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The AO made additions to the income based on lack of evidence. The assessee argued before the CIT(A) that all necessary documents were provided, but the creditors refused to appear before the AO due to fear. However, the CIT(A) upheld the addition, stating that the assessee failed to prove the genuine credit. The ITAT, after considering submissions, upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, citing precedents where similar circumstances led to additions under section 68 of the IT Act. The appeal was dismissed based on the lack of creditor confirmation and cash deposits before loan transactions.

Issue No.2 - Bogus Purchases:
The AO questioned the authenticity of purchase bills provided by the assessee, noting discrepancies in quantities and rates. The assessee explained clerical errors and provided invoices to support the purchases. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, leading the ITAT to remand the matter to the AO for reconsideration. The ITAT found that proper bills were produced, and the explanation of clerical errors was not adequately addressed by the AO or CIT(A). The matter was sent back to the AO for a fresh decision after verifying facts from invoices and providing the assessee with a fair opportunity to be heard.

Issue No.3 - Difference in Closing Stock:
Discrepancies in the valuation of closing stock led to an addition to the income. The assessee argued that the valuation was correct, citing supporting documents. The ITAT found the addition unjustified, as the opening stock figures remained consistent in subsequent years. The ITAT deleted the addition based on the explanation provided and supporting evidence. The appeal was partly allowed, with the addition to the income on account of the difference in closing stock being removed.

In conclusion, the ITAT partially allowed the appeal, dismissing the unsecured loans issue, remanding the bogus purchases issue for reconsideration, and deleting the addition related to the difference in closing stock. The judgment provided detailed analysis and legal references to support each decision, ensuring a fair and thorough review of the issues raised in the appeal.