2018 (3) TMI 1402 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained credits u/s 68 - share application received - Held that - The assessee has not furnished any supporting evidence to explain the sources. By way of confirmation letters, the assessee may have been able to provide identity of the transactions but has failed to prove the creditworthiness of the parties as well as the genuineness of the transactions, particularly when both the parties are not Income Tax Assessee and the payments are made in cash. The CIT (A) has clearly brought out that the assessee did not submit the details of the mode of payment by these two persons and that neither their identity nor the creditworthiness nor the genuineness of the transactions is proved. No reason to interfere with the order of the CIT (A) on this issue and the addition is confirmed. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Unexplained credits under section 68
- Excise duty on finished goods
- Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia)

Unexplained credits under section 68:
The assessee, engaged in manufacturing, filed a return for A.Y. 2006-07 showing a loss. The AO made additions under various issues, including unexplained credits under section 68. The CIT (A) granted partial relief, leading to appeals before the ITAT. The ITAT directed a reevaluation of the section 68 additions. The AO, after receiving confirmation letters from the assessee, added ?23,51,000 under section 68. The CIT (A) confirmed additions of ?7,68,000 as share application money and ?11,88,000 as unsecured creditors. The assessee appealed, arguing the evidence was not considered. The ITAT upheld the CIT (A)'s decision, stating the assessee failed to prove the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions.

Excise duty on finished goods:
The judgment did not provide detailed analysis or outcome specific to the issue of excise duty on finished goods.

Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia):
The judgment did not provide detailed analysis or outcome specific to the issue of disallowance under section 40(a)(ia).

The ITAT Hyderabad, through Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, Judicial Member, heard the appeal concerning various issues, including unexplained credits under section 68. The assessee's failure to prove the creditworthiness and genuineness of transactions led to the confirmation of additions by the CIT (A) and subsequent dismissal of the appeal by the ITAT. The judgment highlighted the importance of providing necessary evidence to substantiate transactions, emphasizing the onus on the assessee to establish identity and creditworthiness. The decision underscored the significance of documentary proof in tax assessments and reiterated the legal principles governing such cases.