2022 (11) TMI 22 - HC - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 - funds received from M/s. Rachna Finlease Pvt. Ltd. - identity and creditworthiness proved or not? - entire gamut of facts making it evident that the transaction was in the nature of accommodation entry - HELD THAT - Creditworthiness and genuineness of said M/s. Rachna Finlease Pvt. Ltd. was not established and that towards the share application money, the said party was a non-filer assessee company. It was sought to be argued that when the amount was given towards share application money, the assessee was not free from suspicion. Once the Books of Accounts and the facts reflected therein showed the source of the fund and the identity of the party and the aspect that Books of Accounts of the assessee also reflected the receipt and the amount was repaid by the assessee, it was not open to the AO to raise doubts about the creditworthiness of the creditor. AO ignored the relevant material. Appellate Authority as well as the Income Appellate Tax Tribunal concurrently reversed the findings of the Assessing Officer on the said count. It could not be said that any question much less any substantial question of law arise in the appeal.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding unexplained cash credits.
2. Assessment of creditworthiness and genuineness of transactions with M/s. Rachna Finlease Pvt. Ltd.
3. Reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act based on information from investigating wing.
4. Dismissal of appeal by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal against the order of the Appellate Authority.

Interpretation of Section 68:
The case involved a Tax Appeal under section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging the addition of Rs. 39,05,50,000 under section 68 of the Act for funds received from M/s. Rachna Finlease Pvt. Ltd. The Assessing Officer treated this amount as unexplained cash credit, invoking section 68 which requires the assessee to explain the nature and source of such credit. However, the Appellate Authority found that the appellant had discharged its onus under section 68 by providing details of the source of funds and establishing the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor. The Tribunal concurred with this view, emphasizing that the Assessing Officer's doubts were unfounded as the appellant had proven the genuineness of the transaction.

Assessment of Creditworthiness:
The appellant demonstrated the legitimacy of the transaction by submitting various documents such as Pan Card, Ledger Confirmation, and bank statements. It was revealed that M/s. Rachna Finlease Pvt. Ltd. had received funds from identifiable sources, contradicting the Assessing Officer's claim that the party's creditworthiness was not proven. The Tribunal noted that M/s. Rachna Finlease Pvt. Ltd. had filed income tax returns and undergone assessments, indicating a legitimate financial operation. The Appellate Authority and the Tribunal both rejected the Assessing Officer's stance, affirming the credibility of the transaction and the creditor's creditworthiness.

Reopening of Assessment:
The assessment was reopened under section 147 of the Act based on information received from the investigating wing regarding credits from M/s. Rachna Finlease Pvt. Ltd. The original return of income was reassessed, resulting in the addition of Rs. 39,05,50,000 under section 68. Subsequent appeals and tribunal proceedings ensued, culminating in the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal against the Appellate Authority's decision. The Tribunal highlighted the flawed reasoning of the Assessing Officer and upheld the findings that the appellant had sufficiently proven the legitimacy of the credits received.

Dismissal of Appeal:
The appeal challenging the addition of unexplained cash credits was deemed meritless and summarily dismissed by the Tribunal. The legal representatives for the appellant failed to establish any substantial question of law warranting a different outcome. The concurrent decisions of the Appellate Authority and the Tribunal reinforced the appellant's successful discharge of the burden of proof under section 68, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the legal interpretation of section 68, the assessment of creditworthiness, the reopening of assessment under section 147, and the final dismissal of the appeal by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.