2020 (8) TMI 274 - AT - Income Tax

Addition on account of unsecured loans u/s 68 - HELD THAT - Learned counsel provided detail of each entry of the credit received from Mrs Sunita Mittal and also informed source of the each credit therefore, in the interest of the substantial justice, we feel it appropriate to restore this issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer for examining the nature and source of the credit in terms of section 68 - assessee may file all the documentary evidences in support of the credits appearing in ledger account of Sunita Mittal in the books of the assessee. Grounds of the appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition of unsecured loans under section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Rejection of explanation and evidences for proving the genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of lenders.

Analysis:
1. Issue 1: Addition of unsecured loans under section 68 of the Income Tax Act
The appellant contested the addition of ?43,46,970 as unsecured loans made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Act. The appellant failed to provide income tax particulars of the unsecured loan parties, leading to a lack of proof regarding the identity and creditworthiness of the lenders. The appellant argued that non-filing of income tax returns by creditors does not conclusively establish their creditworthiness. However, the CIT(A) upheld the addition, emphasizing discrepancies in explanations and lack of proper documentation to support the loans. The Tribunal decided to send the issue back to the Assessing Officer for further examination based on documentary evidence to determine the year in which the loans were received.

2. Issue 2: Rejection of explanation and evidences for proving the genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of lenders
Regarding the rejection of explanations and evidences by the CIT(A) to prove the genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of lenders, the appellant provided detailed information about the unsecured loans from Mrs. Sunita Mittal. The appellant explained the sources of each credit received from Mrs. Sunita Mittal, including loans from Mr. H.K. Agrawal, M/s. Arjun Gupta (HUF), and salary received. The Tribunal found discrepancies in the explanations provided by the appellant and decided to send the issue back to the Assessing Officer for a thorough examination of the nature and source of the credits in accordance with section 68 of the Act. The appellant was directed to submit all documentary evidence supporting the credits from Mrs. Sunita Mittal for further assessment.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, directing a re-examination of the issues related to unsecured loans and the genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of lenders. The order was pronounced on 11th August 2020.