2025 (6) TMI 292 - AT - Income Tax

Addition of unsecured Loans - Addition u/s 68 - Since the assessee failed to produce the director of that entity to confirm the transactions AO doubted the genuineness of the same - HELD THAT - We find that the factual findings as rendered by Ld. CIT(A) remain uncontroverted before us. From the impugned order it could be ascertained that the assessee had duly discharged the primary onus of Sec.68 and the onus was on AO to disprove the same. However no such evidences have been brought on record. It is trite law no addition could be made on the basis of suspicion conjectures or surmises. Therefore the adjudication of CIT(A) could not be faulted with. Decided against revenue.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in these appeals arising from assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19 are as follows:

• Whether the unsecured loans received by the assessee from certain entities can be treated as genuine loans or are to be added to the income of the assessee under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, on the ground of being accommodation entries or bogus transactions.
• Whether the assessee discharged the onus cast upon it under Section 68 by proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transactions.
• Whether the Assessing Officer (AO) was justified in making additions based on mere presumptions and without sufficient evidence to disprove the genuineness of the loans.
• Whether the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] and the Interim Board of Settlement (IBS) regarding the genuineness of the entities and transactions are binding and conclusive for the purpose of assessment.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Genuineness of unsecured loan of Rs.187.05 Lacs from M/s L.S. Automobiles and Finance Co. Ltd. (AY 2017-18)

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 68 of the Income Tax Act places the onus on the assessee to prove the identity of the creditor, the genuineness of the loan transaction, and the creditworthiness of the lender. Judicial precedents such as CIT vs. S. Kamaljeet Singh and Banarsi Prasad vs. CIT emphasize that the assessee must discharge the primary onus, and thereafter the AO must bring evidence to disprove the genuineness.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the assessee produced comprehensive documentary evidence including Income Tax Returns, bank statements, ledger extracts, confirmation letters, and audited financial statements of the lender entity. The Director of the lender company confirmed the transactions in response to summons. The AO's conclusion that the lender was not engaged in any business and had low income was held to be a mere presumption, lacking factual basis.

Key evidence and findings: The DDIT (Inv.) enquiry report, confirmation letters, audited financials, and tax returns of the lender entity were considered. The assessee's evidence satisfied the requirements under Section 68. No evidence was found to suggest that the loans were fictitious or routed from the assessee's own funds.

Application of law to facts: Since the assessee discharged the primary onus, the burden shifted to the AO to disprove the genuineness, which was not done beyond conjecture. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition.

Treatment of competing arguments: The revenue's reliance on the lender's low business activity was rejected as insufficient. The Tribunal emphasized that absence of business activity alone cannot lead to disallowance without supporting evidence.

Conclusion: The addition was rightly deleted as the loan was genuine and the assessee fulfilled the statutory burden under Section 68.

Issue 2: Addition of Rs.700 Lacs loan from M/s Maa Bhagwati Enterprises (AY 2017-18)

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The genuineness of the loan under Section 68 again was the focal point. Additionally, the role of the Interim Board of Settlement (IBS) under Section 245D(4) in determining the genuineness of entities and transactions was considered.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The CIT(A) relied on the order of the IBS which accepted that M/s Maa Bhagwati Enterprises was a genuine trading entity engaged in edible oils business, with purchases from other companies. The IBS order confirmed the genuineness of the entity and the origin of funds.

Key evidence and findings: The IBS order dated 26/27-09-2023 was a critical document, establishing the existence and bona fide nature of the entity and the transaction. The assessee's submissions were also considered during remand proceedings.

Application of law to facts: The Tribunal held that the findings of the IBS are authoritative and binding for the purpose of assessment. Consequently, the addition under Section 68 was not sustainable.

Treatment of competing arguments: The revenue's appeal against the deletion was dismissed, as no contrary evidence was brought on record to challenge the IBS findings.

Conclusion: The addition was correctly deleted based on the IBS order confirming the genuineness of the loan.

Issue 3: Addition of Rs.260 Lacs loan from M/s Sun Moon Vision Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. (AY 2018-19)

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 68 and the principles regarding burden of proof and genuineness of loans were again applicable. The status of the lender as an active company with declared income and tax payments was relevant.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The CIT(A) found that the assessee furnished Income Tax Returns, bank statements, ledger extracts, and audited financial statements confirming the loan. The enquiry was initially directed at a wrong address. The lender was an active company with substantial revenue and shareholders' funds.

Key evidence and findings: The lender's financials showed revenue of Rs.8.18 Crores and payment of taxes. The funds originated from M/s BN Agritech Pvt. Ltd. The AO failed to produce evidence disproving the genuineness of the loan.

Application of law to facts: The Tribunal emphasized that no addition can be made on suspicion or surmises. The assessee discharged the primary onus under Section 68, and the AO failed to rebut it.

Treatment of competing arguments: The revenue's appeal was dismissed as it relied on conjecture without concrete evidence.

Conclusion: The addition was rightly deleted.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Tribunal held:

"By furnishing these evidences, the burden as casted on the assessee stood discharged and the onus was on Ld. AO to disprove the same. However, except for mere presumptions, there is no evidence before Ld. AO to support the impugned addition."

"It is trite law no addition could be made on the basis of suspicion, conjectures or surmises."

"The conclusion of Ld. CIT(A) in accepting the loan transaction by placing reliance on plethora of judicial decisions could not be faulted with."

"The findings of the Hon'ble IBS considering the genuineness of existence of the entity and acceptance of its business activity are binding and conclusive for the purpose of assessment."

Core principles established include:

• The assessee's primary onus under Section 68 to prove identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of loans must be discharged by producing cogent evidence such as financial statements, bank statements, and confirmations.
• Once the primary onus is discharged, the AO must bring forth positive evidence to disprove the genuineness; mere suspicion or presumption is insufficient.
• Findings of authoritative bodies such as the Interim Board of Settlement regarding the genuineness of entities and transactions are binding for assessment purposes.
• The absence of business activity or low income of the lender alone cannot be a ground for addition without supporting evidence.

Final determinations on each issue were in favour of the assessee, leading to dismissal of the revenue's appeals for both assessment years.