2020 (10) TMI 351 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 - short-term advance receipts - HELD THAT - We are of the view that assessee company has received a short-term advance from M/s Birch Vinimay Pvt Ltd. and repaid the same amount vide cheque in Account UCO Bank by the assessee to the aforesaid said company and the same has been entered in the books of accounts of the assessee. The Leger account of M/s Birch Vinmay Private Limited also establish the same. Therefore, we are of the view that since the assessee has repaid the advance through proper banking channel and M/s Birch Vinmay Private Limited has shown the same in its Ledger Account, therefore, no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee u/s. 68 hence, the same deserve to be deleted. The amount in dispute is a short term loan which was duly repaid by the assessee through proper banking channel to M/s Birch Vinmay Private Limited, hence, in our considered view the addition in dispute was wrongly been made in the hands of the assessee which needs to be deleted. Therefore, we delete the addition in dispute. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Validity of reassessment proceedings under section 147
- Application of mind in initiation of reassessment proceedings
- Cross-examination in case of addition made without proper investigation
- Addition under section 68 for loan received and repaid by cheque
- Deletion of addition based on documentary evidence

Analysis:

1. Validity of Reassessment Proceedings under Section 147:
The appeal challenged the validity of reassessment proceedings under section 147, contending that there was no valid service of notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, the legal grounds related to this issue were not pressed by the Assessee's counsel during the hearing, leading to their dismissal by the tribunal.

2. Application of Mind in Initiation of Reassessment Proceedings:
The Assessee argued that the initiation of reassessment proceedings lacked an independent application of mind and relied heavily on the investigation report by the Assessing Officer. The tribunal noted the objections raised by the Assessee but ultimately dismissed these grounds as not pressed during the hearing.

3. Cross-Examination in Case of Addition Made Without Proper Investigation:
The Assessee contested the addition of ?25,00,000 without the opportunity for cross-examination of the person whose statement initiated the proceedings under section 147. The tribunal considered the lack of proper investigation from the other party and the Assessee's submission of relevant documents. However, no specific ruling or decision was provided on this issue in the judgment.

4. Addition under Section 68 for Loan Received and Repaid by Cheque:
The core issue revolved around the addition of ?25,00,000 under section 68 for a loan received and repaid by cheque within 15 days. The Assessee presented documentary evidence, including confirmation of accounts and ledger entries, to support the claim that the transaction was genuine and conducted through proper banking channels. The tribunal examined the evidence and relevant legal precedents, ultimately concluding that no addition should be made under section 68 as the loan was repaid through proper banking channels.

5. Deletion of Addition Based on Documentary Evidence:
Based on the documentary evidence provided by the Assessee, including confirmation of accounts and ledger entries demonstrating the receipt and repayment of the loan, the tribunal decided to delete the addition in dispute. Citing various decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court supporting the Assessee's position, the tribunal held that the amount in question was a short-term loan duly repaid through proper banking channels, warranting the deletion of the addition.

In conclusion, the tribunal partly allowed the Assessee's appeal, emphasizing the importance of documentary evidence and adherence to proper banking channels in transactions to support the Assessee's position and lead to the deletion of the disputed addition.