9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (6) TMI 512 - AT - Income TaxBogus loans u/s 68 - unsecured loans from the three loan creditors and interest on loans - loan providing entities were part of the Bhanwarlal Jain Group - reliance on third party statement - AO received the information that the assessee is one of the beneficiaries of the accommodation entries provided by the group concerns - CIT-A held as assessee has discharged the burden by submitting the requisite information and the onus lies on the AO to make enquires and deleted the addition - HELD THAT - In spite of filing all the details, the A.O. has not conducted any investigation or enquiry in respect of the information submitted by the assessee. CIT(A) has considered the facts, circumstances and observed that the assessee prima-facie has complied the ingredients required u/s 68 of identity, genuineness and creditworthiness. CIT(A) relied on the catena of judicial decisions and test checked the genuineness and creditworthiness of the lenders. CIT(A) came to a reasonable conclusion that the assessee has discharged its burden on submitting the information in the assessment proceedings and the A.O. has failed to conduct the enquiries and the A.O should have conducted independent investigation without relying on the third party statements and facts. AR demonstrated the copy of bank statements reflecting the credits from the three parties along with other evidences - A.O has failed to make further enquiries and relied on the statement recorded, which was retracted subsequently and has overlooked the factual aspects that the assessee has discharged the initial burden placed by submitting the information - DR could not controvert the findings of the CIT(A) with any new cogent material or information to take different view - Decided against revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Justification of deletion of additions on account of bogus loans under Section 68 and the interest on them. 2. Consideration of the statement by Sh. Bhanwarlal Jain regarding accommodation entries. 3. Whether the assessee discharged the burden of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of loan creditors. 4. The approach of the Assessing Officer (AO) in making additions without independent investigation. Summary: Issue 1: Deletion of Additions on Account of Bogus Loans and Interest: The revenue questioned whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] was justified in deleting additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of bogus loans under Section 68 and the interest on those loans. The AO had added unsecured loans of Rs. 4.40 crores and disallowed interest of Rs. 29,57,455/-, treating them as unexplained cash credits. The CIT(A) observed that the assessee had provided sufficient documentation to substantiate the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan creditors, including PAN, incorporation certificates, IT returns, confirmations, bank statements, and audited accounts. The CIT(A) held that the transactions were routed through banking channels and the AO failed to provide corroborative evidence to prove that the loans were bogus. Issue 2: Consideration of Statement by Sh. Bhanwarlal Jain: The revenue also questioned whether the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions despite an unequivocal statement by Sh. Bhanwarlal Jain that he was in the business of providing accommodation entries. The CIT(A) noted that the AO relied heavily on the statement of Sh. Bhanwarlal Jain, which was later retracted. The CIT(A) emphasized that the AO did not provide the assessee with an opportunity to cross-examine Sh. Bhanwarlal Jain, which was a violation of natural justice. The CIT(A) concluded that the AO failed to gather independent evidence to substantiate the claim that the loans were accommodation entries. Issue 3: Burden of Proving Identity, Creditworthiness, and Genuineness: The CIT(A) found that the assessee had discharged its burden by submitting comprehensive documentation proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan creditors. The CIT(A) referred to various judicial decisions, including the principles laid down by the Mumbai ITAT in the case of Anant Shelters Pvt. Ltd., which emphasized that the initial burden lies on the assessee to prove these three ingredients. Once the assessee provides sufficient evidence, the onus shifts to the revenue to disprove the claims. The CIT(A) held that the AO did not make any efforts to disprove the evidence provided by the assessee. Issue 4: Approach of the AO in Making Additions: The CIT(A) criticized the AO for relying solely on the information received from the DGIT (Inv.) and the statement of Sh. Bhanwarlal Jain without conducting any independent investigation or inquiry. The CIT(A) observed that the AO did not provide any material evidence to support the claim that the loans were bogus and failed to verify the genuineness of the transactions. The CIT(A) concluded that the AO's approach was not justified and directed the AO to withdraw the additions. Conclusion: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the order of the CIT(A), agreeing that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan creditors. The ITAT found that the AO failed to conduct independent investigations and relied solely on statements and information from third parties. The appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.
|
