9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (12) TMI 627 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 68 - AO has noted from the balance sheet that the assessee had obtained unsecured loan from Sri Bandaru Srinivasa Rao during the year - CIT- A deleted the addition - HELD THAT - Considering the specific finding given by the ld. CIT(A) and also by considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that the assessee has discharged the burden casted upon him by producing all the relevant details before the AO - AO is not correct in making the addition on the ground that the creditor has no source to advance the funds to the assessee in spite of specific confirmation letter given by the creditor and in 131 examination he admitted that he advanced the loan to the assessee and also explained the source for the advance. No reason to interfere with the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). Thus, this appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the addition of ?2,06,50,000/- made by the AO under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act was justified. 2. Whether the CIT(A) correctly deleted the addition made by the AO. 3. Whether the assessee successfully discharged the burden of proving the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditor. 4. Whether the cross-objection filed by the assessee is valid. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Addition under Section 68: The AO made an addition of ?2,06,50,000/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, treating it as unexplained cash credit. The AO observed that the creditor, despite providing a confirmation letter and bank statements, could not substantiate the sources for advancing the money. The creditor's bank account showed cash deposits either on the same day or a day before the cheques were issued to the assessee. The AO noted that the creditor did not have sufficient income sources to justify the loan amount and had significant interest payments on housing loans. Consequently, the AO concluded that the creditworthiness of the creditor was not established and treated the loan as an unexplained cash credit. 2. Deletion of Addition by CIT(A): The CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO after examining the details provided by the assessee. The CIT(A) noted that the assessee had furnished the identity of the creditor, a confirmation letter, the creditor's income tax return, ledger account, and bank statements. The CIT(A) further observed that the creditor's case was scrutinized by the AO of the creditor, who verified the sources of cash deposits, including an opening cash balance of ?1.72 crores, and found them to be correct. The creditor's balance sheet reflected the outstanding loan to the assessee. Therefore, the CIT(A) concluded that the AO of the creditor was satisfied with the sources for the loan advanced to the assessee, and there was no ground for treating the loan as an unexplained cash credit. 3. Burden of Proof: The assessee successfully discharged the burden of proving the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditor. The assessee provided all relevant documents, including the creditor's confirmation letter, income tax return, ledger account, and bank statements. The creditor confirmed the loan in his statement recorded under Section 131 and explained the sources of the loan. The CIT(A) found that the AO of the creditor had verified and accepted the sources of the loan. Thus, the assessee fulfilled the requirements under Section 68, and the AO's addition was not justified. 4. Cross-Objection by the Assessee: The cross-objection filed by the assessee was in support of the CIT(A)'s order. Since there was no grievance against the CIT(A)'s order, the cross-objection was deemed infructuous and dismissed accordingly. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of ?2,06,50,000/- made by the AO under Section 68. The Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged the burden of proving the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditor. The AO's addition was not justified, given the specific confirmation and examination of the creditor's sources. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross-objection filed by the assessee were dismissed.
|
