2025 (6) TMI 566 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 - AO received credible information from the Investigation Wing that the assessee is one of the beneficiaries who has availed benefit from the shell companies floated of Banka Group - HELD THAT - It is an admitted fact that after receipt of notice u/s 148 as assessee requested AO to furnish the date of alleged transaction and also informed the AO that he has not received any loan amount of Rs. 20, 00, 112/- from M/s. Banka Group. Assessee also furnished the Bank statement before the AO as well as before the CIT(Appeals). But admittedly there is no credit in the Bank account of the assessee especially for an amount as alleged by the ld. AO. Assessing Officer is lacking in so many aspects i.e.AO failed to furnish the details of lender company date of transaction and credits in the Bank account from the non-existent companies in the books of the assessee and mainly the statement of the company confirming the appellant as one of the beneficiaries availed the benefit from the shell companies floated by Banka Group. All these details are minimum requirements to the assessee to rebut the allegations raised by the ld. Assessing Officer against the assessee - Decided against revenue.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal are:

(a) Whether the Assessing Officer (AO) was justified in making an addition of Rs. 20,00,112/- under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, treating the amount as unexplained cash credit without furnishing essential details such as the identity of the lender, date of transaction, and bank credit evidence.

(b) Whether the onus of proving the identity, creditworthiness of the lender, and genuineness of the transaction under section 68 was discharged by the assessee.

(c) Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee by relying on a precedent without conducting independent verification of facts.

(d) Whether the Revenue's contention that the High Court erred in not following judicial principles laid down in an earlier decision was sustainable.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (a): Justification of addition under section 68 without furnishing transaction details

Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 68 of the Income Tax Act places the burden on the assessee to explain the nature and source of any unexplained cash credits. The Assessing Officer is required to verify the identity and genuineness of the credit. Precedents emphasize that the AO must provide the assessee with details of the alleged transaction to enable proper explanation.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the AO failed to furnish critical details such as the name of the shell company lender, date of the loan transaction, and evidence of credit in the assessee's bank account. The assessee consistently denied any transaction with the Banka Group and submitted bank statements showing no receipt of Rs. 20,00,112/-.

Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee's bank statements and denial of transaction were undisputed. The AO's reliance on information from the Investigation Wing and balance sheet entries was not supported by documentary evidence of the transaction or bank credits.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal held that without furnishing primary details, the AO's addition under section 68 lacked proper appreciation of facts and was unsustainable.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue argued that the AO had credible information and balance sheet evidence, but the Tribunal found these insufficient without transaction specifics. The assessee's argument that the AO failed to provide transaction details was accepted.

Conclusion: The addition made by the AO under section 68 was rightly deleted by the CIT(A), and the Tribunal upheld this deletion.

Issue (b): Discharge of onus by the assessee under section 68

Legal Framework and Precedents: The onus under section 68 lies on the assessee to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the lender and genuineness of the transaction. However, this onus is discharged if the AO fails to provide necessary details of the transaction.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: Since the AO did not provide the name of the lender company, date of transaction, or bank credit evidence, the assessee was unable to furnish details. The Tribunal found that the assessee had made reasonable attempts to seek these details and had provided bank statements and denials.

Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee's bank statements and correspondence requesting transaction details were on record. The absence of any credit in the bank account for the alleged amount was crucial.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal concluded that the assessee had discharged the onus to the extent possible given the AO's failure to furnish details.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue contended that the onus was on the assessee regardless of AO's action, but the Tribunal emphasized the procedural requirement on the AO to provide transaction particulars to enable explanation.

Conclusion: The assessee was not at fault for non-disclosure of details which were not provided by the AO, thus discharging the section 68 onus.

Issue (c): Whether CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal without verification

Legal Framework and Precedents: The appellate authority is expected to examine the facts and evidence before allowing or dismissing an appeal. Reliance on precedents is permissible but should be accompanied by fact verification.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had examined the bank statements, the assessee's denials, and the absence of transaction details from the AO before allowing the appeal. The CIT(A) also relied on a recent decision of the ITAT Ahmedabad Bench which dealt with similar facts.

Key Evidence and Findings: The CIT(A)'s order explicitly noted the absence of primary details and directed deletion of the addition.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s approach and held that the appellate authority had properly appreciated the facts.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue's argument that the CIT(A) erred in not conducting independent verification was rejected as the CIT(A) had indeed considered the available evidence.

Conclusion: The CIT(A)'s order was upheld as being justified and well-reasoned.

Issue (d): Alleged error by the High Court in not following judicial principles

Legal Framework and Precedents: Judicial discipline requires courts to follow binding precedents unless distinguished on facts or overruled. The Revenue cited an earlier High Court decision with precedence value.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted the Revenue's contention but found that the facts of the present case were distinguishable, particularly due to the AO's failure to provide transaction details and credible evidence. The Tribunal did not find any substantial error in the High Court's approach.

Key Evidence and Findings: The absence of transaction particulars and bank credits was a significant factual difference from the cited precedent.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal held that the High Court's decision was consistent with judicial principles and correctly applied to the facts of the case.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue's plea for precedence was considered but rejected due to factual distinctions.

Conclusion: No substantial error of law was committed by the High Court.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Tribunal's crucial legal reasoning includes the following verbatim excerpt from the CIT(A)'s order, which it upheld:

"In the case of the appellant, the Assessing Officer has not provided complete details of the name of the shell company with whom the transaction was undertaken by the appellant and the date of transaction. In the absence of primary details to prove the genuineness of the transaction, the addition made by the Assessing Officer is without proper appreciation of facts and the Assessing Officer is directed to delete the addition of Rs. 20,00,000/- towards unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act."

Core principles established by the Tribunal include:

• The Assessing Officer must furnish essential details of the alleged unexplained cash credit transactions, including the identity of the lender, date of transaction, and bank credit evidence, to enable the assessee to discharge the onus under section 68.
• Failure of the AO to provide such particulars renders the addition under section 68 unsustainable.
• The assessee's denial of transaction and submission of bank statements showing no such credit, in absence of AO's details, suffices to rebut the addition.
• Appellate authorities must consider all material evidence and may rely on precedents, but must also verify facts before allowing or dismissing appeals.
• Precedents must be applied in light of factual distinctions; mere citation of earlier decisions does not mandate identical outcomes if facts differ materially.

Final determinations on each issue were in favour of the assessee, resulting in dismissal of the Revenue's appeal and confirmation of the deletion of the addition under section 68.