2022 (9) TMI 571 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s. 68 - Accommodation entries by way of bogus loans from entities - CIT(A) deleted the additions - HELD THAT - Assessee has taken loan from three parties i.e. Easy Mercantile Company Ryan International and Sevem Star Gems. It is fact on record that assessee has filed all the relevant documents relevant for the loan transactions which includes bank statement confirmations financial records return of income and also affidavits from the loan creditors to prove that these transactions are genuine. All these facts were clearly submitted before the CIT(A) and CIT(A) considering the submissions and verifying each loan transactions in detail the loan confirmations affidavits etc. filed by these parties. CIT(A) after verification of the bank statements came to the conclusion that there is no cash deposits nowhere involved in any of the transactions entered into by the assessee as well as the lenders. As observed that merely statement of having given accommodation entries is not sufficient to make the addition such statements remained uncorroborated by any independent evidences as to having carried any fictitious trade in diamond as claimed in the statement. After duly verifying the details submitted before him he came to the conclusion that assessee has proved the identity creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions and in the similar cases the Coordinate Bench has also deleted the similar additions made in the cases involving PKJ. We are in agreement with the Ld.CIT(A) that assessee has proved the genuineness identity and creditworthiness in these transactions. It is relevant to note that the assessee has not only taken the loan and also repaid the loan. Therefore we do not find any reason to disturb the finding of the Ld.CIT(A). Accordingly ground raised by the revenue is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Addition of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for alleged bogus loans.
3. Validity and genuineness of loan transactions.
4. Credibility of statements and retractions by Shri Pravin Kumar Jain (PKJ).
5. Burden of proof and cross-examination rights.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Reopening of Assessment under Section 147:
The assessee's case was reopened based on information from the Investigation Wing that the assessee had taken accommodation entries by way of bogus loans from entities linked to Shri Pravin Kumar Jain (PKJ). The Assessing Officer (AO) prepared a satisfaction note and issued notice under Section 148, which was duly served on the assessee. The assessee raised objections to the reassessment proceedings, which were disposed of by the AO.

2. Addition under Section 68 for Alleged Bogus Loans:
The AO made an addition of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- under Section 68, alleging that the loans from three parties were accommodation entries. The AO's conclusion was based on the non-service of summons under Section 131 and the statement of PKJ, which indicated that he provided accommodation entries. However, the assessee provided extensive documentation, including loan confirmations, bank statements, income tax returns of the lenders, and affidavits confirming the transactions.

3. Validity and Genuineness of Loan Transactions:
The assessee submitted evidence to prove the genuineness of the loan transactions, including:
- Loan confirmations from the parties.
- Bank statements showing the receipt and repayment of loans.
- Income tax returns and bank statements of the lenders.
- Affidavits from the lenders confirming the transactions.
The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] accepted these documents as sufficient proof of the genuineness, identity, and creditworthiness of the loan transactions.

4. Credibility of Statements and Retractions by PKJ:
PKJ initially admitted to providing accommodation entries but later retracted his statement. The assessee argued that the retracted statement lacked credibility and was not corroborated by any independent evidence. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal noted that the statement of PKJ was general and did not specifically mention the assessee. The Tribunal also emphasized that the statement alone, without corroborative evidence, was insufficient to make an addition under Section 68.

5. Burden of Proof and Cross-examination Rights:
The assessee argued that the burden of proof shifted to the Revenue once the initial onus was discharged by providing documentary evidence. The assessee also highlighted the denial of the opportunity to cross-examine PKJ, which violated principles of natural justice. The Tribunal agreed, citing various judicial precedents that emphasize the need for cross-examination when statements are used against an assessee.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- made by the AO. The Tribunal found that the assessee had adequately proved the genuineness, identity, and creditworthiness of the loan transactions. The Tribunal also noted that the Revenue failed to provide any independent evidence to substantiate the claim of accommodation entries. The appeals filed by the Revenue for both assessment years were dismissed.