2018 (9) TMI 1108 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 - Addition on account of peak credits worked out on the basis of pen drive - Held that - Peak credits of the transactions in the pen drive stood accepted by one Shri Chetan Gupta as its income. The addition made in the hands of assessee company on the same basis cannot be sustained. Once the said peak credits have been added in the hands of Shri Chetan Gupta, the same cannot be again added in the hands of assessee company. No contrary material is placed on record on behalf of the Revenue. We, accordingly, do not find any justification to sustain the addition made by the authorities below in the hands of Assessee Company. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition of unexplained cash credits based on pen drive contents.
2. Validity of reassessment proceedings under section 147.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Addition of unexplained cash credits based on pen drive contents
The appellant contested the addition of ?6,40,622 based on a pen drive allegedly recovered from another individual, arguing that the pen drive did not belong to the appellant company. The Assessing Officer added the amount under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after finding unaccounted expenses in the pen drive. The appellant's reply, stating that the entries were already considered in another individual's case, was rejected. The CIT(A) upheld the addition, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that the same entries had been accepted as income by the other individual, Shri Chetan Gupta, and thus, could not be added again in the hands of the appellant. Citing previous Tribunal decisions, the Tribunal held that the addition in the appellant's case was not justified, ultimately allowing the appeal.

Issue 2: Validity of reassessment proceedings under section 147
Although the appellant raised concerns about the validity of the reassessment proceedings under section 147, the legal arguments on this issue were not pursued during the appeal. The Tribunal focused its decision on the specific issue of the addition of unexplained cash credits based on the pen drive contents. The appellant's case was supported by previous Tribunal rulings and the acknowledgment that the entries had already been considered in another individual's assessment. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing that the addition made by the authorities below in the hands of the appellant was not justified.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant based on the non-sustainability of the addition of unexplained cash credits in the appellant's hands. The decision highlighted the importance of consistency in treatment of income across related cases and cited previous Tribunal judgments to support its ruling.