2023 (11) TMI 287 - HC - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - addition u/s. 68 r.w.s. 115BBE - Tribunal justification in quashing the order u/s. 263 - HELD THAT - Assessee had submitted an explanation that the repayment of unsecured loan was made from sell proceeds from one of the debtors and therefore adequate inquiry was done and it was not a case of lake of inquiry. In context of applicability of Section 69C it was held by the Tribunal that the section would apply to unsecured expenditure, source of which remains unexplained. Tribunal held that in the assessee s case, repayment of loan does not constitute any expenditure and as the source of such repayment was also explained before the AO as well as the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Section 69C could not have invoked. It was also further observed that the receipts had already been taxed in the hands of the assessee and the assessee had filed an appeal against the order which was finally closed under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme . Accordingly, in our opinion, the Tribunal was right in holding that it was not a case where there was lack of inquiry and therefore there was no ground on which revisionary powers under Section 263 could have been invoked. Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves the following Issues:
1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in quashing the order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act regarding the treatment of unsecured loans repayment.
2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in allowing the appeal against the order under Section 263.
3. Whether the Assessment Order passed by the Assessing Officer was sustainable in law.
4. Whether there was gross inadequacy in the inquiry conducted as per the Supreme Court's order.

Issue 1:
The respondent assessee made repayment of unsecured loans to bogus shell companies, leading to a show cause notice being issued. The Revisional Authority invoked Section 263, stating that the unsecured loans needed to be added to the total income. The Tribunal deliberated on whether the Assessing Officer's omission to treat the expenditure as deemed income under Section 69C was just and proper.

Issue 2:
The ITAT examined the issue and found that the Assessing Officer had duly considered the matter during assessment, issuing a show cause notice proposing an addition under Section 68 read with Section 115BBE of the Act. The assessee provided explanations supported by evidence, demonstrating that the repayment was made from legitimate sources. The Tribunal concluded that there was no lack of inquiry by the Assessing Officer and that Section 69C did not apply in this case, as the repayment of loans did not constitute unexplained expenditure.

Issue 3:
The Tribunal noted that the show cause notice had been issued concerning the addition under Section 68 read with Section 115BBE of the Act. It was established that the repayment of unsecured loans was adequately explained, and there was no lack of inquiry on the part of the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal further clarified that Section 69C did not apply, as the source of repayment was not disputed, and the loans had already been taxed in the assessee's hands in a previous assessment year.

Issue 4:
The Tribunal affirmed that there was no deficiency in the inquiry conducted by the Assessing Officer, and the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal was based on the fact that there was no substantial question of law raised. The Tribunal concluded that the revisionary powers under Section 263 were not warranted in this case, as there was no lack of inquiry and the treatment of the unsecured loans repayment was justified.

This judgment emphasizes the importance of thorough examination and consideration of facts by the tax authorities before invoking revisionary powers under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. It also highlights the significance of providing adequate explanations and evidence to support claims during assessment proceedings to avoid disputes regarding tax liabilities.