2019 (1) TMI 581 - AT - Income Tax

Bogus unsecured loan as cash credit u/s. 68 - relevant inquiries - Held that - The assessing officer has not made any such concrete investigation/ examination as carried out in the case of the PavanKumar.M. Sanghvi 2017 (5) TMI 1159 - ITAT AHMEDABAD to substantiate with relevant material that the loan transaction of the assessee were not genuine. It is clear from the above facts that the assessing officer has simply on the basis of self analysis concluded that loan transactions were not genuine. After considering the above facts and the finding of ld. CIT(A) we do not find any merit in the appeal of the revenue. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against deletion of addition made on account of bogus unsecured loan under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2009-10.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Addition of ?1 crore as unexplained unaccounted money
The assessing officer added ?1 crore to the total income of the assessee as unexplained unaccounted money, alleging that the assessee was trying to introduce unaccounted money through a lender. The CIT(A) allowed the appeal, stating that the assessing officer failed to provide evidence proving the deposits were unaccounted income. The CIT(A) noted that the deposits were made through banking channels, supported by confirmations from tax-assessed depositors. The onus under section 68 was held to be discharged by the appellant. The ITAT observed that the assessing officer did not disprove the appellant's claims with supporting evidence, making a self-analysis based decision. The ITAT distinguished the case from precedent where shell companies were used for bogus transactions, finding no merit in the revenue's appeal.

Issue 2: Addition of ?7 lakhs as unaccounted transaction
Regarding the unsecured loan of ?7 lakhs received from another lender, the assessing officer treated the transaction as unaccounted, alleging it was the assessee's money routed through the lender's account as accommodation entries. However, the CIT(A) found merit in the appellant's argument that the assessing officer's comparison of data led to discrepancies. The CIT(A) noted that the deposits were supported by confirmations and made through account payee cheques. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the lack of concrete investigation by the assessing officer to prove the transactions were not genuine.

Conclusion:
The ITAT dismissed the revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions of ?1 crore and ?7 lakhs. The ITAT found no merit in the revenue's arguments, highlighting the lack of evidence disproving the genuineness of the transactions and the failure to conduct a thorough investigation. The appeal was dismissed on 24-10-2018.