2021 (4) TMI 385 - AT - Income Tax

Unaccounted income received from undisclosed sources - Parties have not shown that the loan to the assessee out of Reserve/Share capital of these companies or any money borrowed from the outside parties - HELD THAT - Assessee has discharged the primary onus casted upon him before the Assessing Officer by the way of filing confirmations, bank accounts, audited accounts, certificates from the bank regarding the interest received, copies of the TDS certificates regarding the interest paid, NBFC status of the lender companies. AO conveniently ignored the receipt of the interest by the lender companies. Further, having received all the documents, the Assessing Officer has not brought anything on record or conducted any investigations to prove that the documents filed are not genuine. The revenue has not responded to the reminders issued by the ld. CIT(A) with regard to bringing any evidences or disputing and countering the evidences filed by the assessee. On merits of the case, since the ld. CIT(A) has given relief based on the discharge of onus by the assessee who cogently fulfilled the obligations casted upon by the Act and the revenue has not brought about anything contra, hence, we decline to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A). With regard to the non-compliance to the seven reminders issued by the ld. CIT(A) to the field authorities, we decline to comment and leave the matter to the discretion of the administrative authorities at this juncture. Appeal of the revenue is dismissed.

Issues:
1. Addition of unaccounted income received from undisclosed sources.
2. Acceptance of claim regarding genuineness and creditworthiness of loan parties.
3. Consideration of facts and circumstances of the loan parties.
4. Deletion of addition without considering the source of funds for loans.

Analysis:
1. The revenue appealed against the order of the ld. CIT(A) regarding the addition of ?2,50,00,000 as unaccounted income from undisclosed sources. The Assessing Officer contended that the loans received by the assessee were non-genuine as the parties did not show the source of funds. However, the ld. CIT(A) found merit in the appellant's argument, noting that all relevant details proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions were submitted. Despite reminders, the AO did not provide any evidence to counter the submissions, leading to the deletion of the addition under section 68 of the IT Act.

2. The ld. CIT(A) forwarded details to the Assessing Officer for investigation, including account statements, confirmations, audited accounts, IT returns, TDS certificates, and bank certificates. The appellant demonstrated the primary onus by providing substantial evidence, such as NBFC status of the lenders and interest income received by the companies. The AO failed to dispute the genuineness of the documents or conduct investigations, leading to the dismissal of the revenue's appeal.

3. The ld. CIT(A) emphasized that the appellant fulfilled obligations under the Act by providing comprehensive documentation, while the revenue failed to present any contradictory evidence. Despite multiple reminders, the AO did not respond, indicating a lack of effort to challenge the appellant's submissions. The tribunal declined to interfere with the ld. CIT(A)'s order, highlighting the importance of discharging the onus of proof in such cases.

4. The tribunal's decision to dismiss the revenue's appeal was based on the appellant's fulfillment of legal obligations by providing extensive documentation to establish the genuineness of the loan transactions. The lack of response from the revenue to the reminders issued by the ld. CIT(A) further strengthened the tribunal's decision not to interfere with the order. The judgment underscored the significance of substantiating claims with concrete evidence in tax matters to avoid unwarranted additions.

← Previous Next →