9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 693 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 68 - unexplained cash credit - assessee was ultimate beneficiary and has taken loan from dubious company - HELD THAT - Impugned addition clearly is a case of Double Taxation as it has been taxed in the hands of M/s Varrenyam Securities Private Limited as well as the assessee. As stated by assessee that the addition has been finally made in the hands of M/s Verrenyam Securities Pvt. Ltd. by the AO; Ld. CIT(A) sustained the addition and ITAT has upheld the action of the Ld. CIT(A) by dismissing the appeal of the assessee and no further appeal has been filed against the order of the ITAT, therefore, it has become final. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that addition was rightly deleted by the Ld. CIT(A), which does not need any interference on our part, hence, we uphold the action of the Ld. CIT(A) and reject the grounds raised by the Revenue. The judicial decisions relied upon by the representatives of both the sides have been duly considered. In our considered view, we do not find any parity in the facts of the decisions relied upon with the peculiar facts of the case in hand . - Decided against revenue
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition of ?26,85,00,000/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Failure of the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction. 3. Substantive and protective addition concerning M/s Varrenyam Securities Pvt. Ltd. 4. Source of funds being unsecured loans and alleged bogus nature. 5. General grounds questioning the correctness of the CIT(A)’s order. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Deletion of Addition of ?26,85,00,000/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act: The Revenue contested the deletion of ?26,85,00,000/- made under Section 68 by the CIT(A), arguing that the assessee was the ultimate beneficiary of a loan from M/s Varrenyam Securities Pvt. Ltd., whose source of funds was unexplained. The Assessing Officer (AO) added this amount to the assessee's income as unexplained credit. However, the CIT(A) deleted this addition, and the tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the same amount had already been taxed in the hands of M/s Varrenyam Securities Pvt. Ltd., leading to double taxation. 2. Failure of the Assessee to Prove Identity, Creditworthiness, and Genuineness: The Revenue argued that the assessee failed to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction with M/s Varrenyam Securities Pvt. Ltd. The AO had added the amount under Section 68 on these grounds. However, the tribunal noted that the assessee had provided sufficient documentation, including the lender's PAN card, bank statements, confirmation letters, ROC registration, ITR filings, and audited financial statements, to substantiate the transaction's genuineness. 3. Substantive and Protective Addition Concerning M/s Varrenyam Securities Pvt. Ltd.: The Revenue claimed that the CIT(A) erred by deleting the addition in the assessee's case while confirming it on a protective basis in the case of M/s Varrenyam Securities Pvt. Ltd., a paper company with no real business or employees. The tribunal found that the addition of ?24.78 crores had already been made and sustained in the hands of M/s Varrenyam Securities Pvt. Ltd. and that the same amount could not be taxed again in the hands of the assessee to avoid double taxation. 4. Source of Funds Being Unsecured Loans and Alleged Bogus Nature: The Revenue contended that the unsecured loans received by the assessee were bogus, as admitted by the entry operator under oath. The tribunal, however, found that the assessee had repaid a significant portion of the loan, paid interest, deducted TDS, and that M/s Varrenyam Securities Pvt. Ltd. had filed a civil suit for the recovery of the outstanding amount, indicating the genuineness of the loan. 5. General Grounds Questioning the Correctness of the CIT(A)’s Order: The tribunal dismissed the Revenue's general grounds, finding no merit in the claims that the CIT(A)'s order was erroneous or untenable. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the addition of ?26.85 crores was rightly deleted, as it was a case of double taxation, and the assessee had adequately discharged its burden under Section 68. Conclusion: The tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s order to delete the addition of ?26.85 crores under Section 68. The tribunal found that the same amount had already been taxed in the hands of M/s Varrenyam Securities Pvt. Ltd., and the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to prove the genuineness of the loan transaction. The tribunal's decision emphasized the avoidance of double taxation and the proper application of Section 68.
|
