2023 (5) TMI 253 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 r.w.s 115BBE - assessee has taken unsecured loans from Shri Gaurav Arora and Smt. Aanchal Gupta - HELD THAT - The bank statement of Smt Aanchal Gupta show that the amount of Rs. 50 lakhs was transferred through RTGS/NEFT from the account of Shri Harish Kumar, who is the father of Smt. Aanchal Gupta. Thereafter, the said amount was transferred to the account of the assessee. A careful perusal of the bank statement shows that Aanchal Gupta was receiving money from her father and thereafter, the amount was transferred to the account of the assessee. Similarly, in the case of Gaurav Arora, substantial amounts were received by him through banking channels, which is evident from the bank accounts. A careful perusal of the index of the Paper Book filed by the assessee shows that the bank statements were not before the AO. AO took a contrary view. Though the bank statements were before the ld. CIT(A), but the ld. CIT(A) has not called for remand report from the Assessing Officer, but simply admitted the additional evidences. Denial of natural justice goes to the root of the matter. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, we restore the issue to the file of the AO.

Summary

Issues:
The judgment involves the confirmation of additions to the returned income under section 68 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act, and the non-decision on a specific ground taken in Form 35 regarding interest paid to loan creditors.

Confirmation of Additions to Returned Income:
The case revolved around the assessee taking unsecured loans from two parties, Gaurav Arora and Smt. Aanchal Gupta, which were scrutinized during assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer raised concerns regarding the genuineness of the transactions, creditworthiness of the lenders, and identity verification. Subsequently, additions were made under section 68 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act, totaling Rs. 21,08,25,000. The Assessing Officer disallowed interest payable to Gaurav Arora and questioned the documentation provided for the loan from Aanchal Gupta.

Assessing Officer's Observations and Decision:
The Assessing Officer found discrepancies in the documentation and transactions related to the loans. While Gaurav Arora failed to comply with a notice, Aanchal Gupta provided supporting documents including bank statements. However, the AO questioned the source of income and nature of business of Aanchal Gupta, leading to the conclusion that the creditworthiness of the lender was not established. Consequently, additions were made under section 68 of the Act, and the matter was taken to the ld. CIT(A) without success.

Appellate Tribunal's Decision and Rationale:
The Appellate Tribunal considered the bank statements of both lenders presented by the assessee during the appeal. It was highlighted that Aanchal Gupta received funds from her father and subsequently transferred them to the assessee, indicating a traceable source. Similarly, Gaurav Arora's substantial transactions through banking channels were noted. The Tribunal noted that while the bank statements were not before the Assessing Officer initially, their absence led to a contrary view. In the interest of justice and fair play, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for reevaluation based on the bank statements, ensuring a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

Conclusion:
The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes, with the directive to furnish all bank statements before the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision. The judgment emphasized the importance of natural justice and fair play in tax assessments, ensuring a thorough examination of evidence before making additions to the returned income.