2025 (6) TMI 641 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 r.w. Section 115BBE - undisclosed income - treating the unsecured loans received as bogus entries and addition being cash deposited by the Assessee in the bank account during the demonization period - HELD THAT - In the present case the identity of the loan creditor are established. The creditors are existing income tax Assessee s and also having bank accounts. Therefore there cannot be any chance to doubt their identity. Since the transactions have been taken place by account payee cheque the genuineness of the transaction is also established beyond doubt and the loan has been paid back through banking channel apart from proving the credit worthiness of the loan creditor. Considering the above facts and circumstances we find no reason to sustain the addition accordingly addition sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is hereby deleted. Appeal of the Assessee is allowed.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this appeal are:

(a) Whether the addition of Rs. 2,50,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) under section 68 read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961, treating unsecured loans from two parties as bogus entries, is sustainable in law.

(b) Whether the principles of natural justice and statutory requirements were followed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] in upholding the addition.

(c) Whether the Assessee discharged the onus cast upon it under section 68 of the Act by furnishing adequate evidence to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions with the two loan creditors.

(d) Whether the findings of the authorities below, particularly the CIT(A), in confirming the addition despite the evidence submitted by the Assessee, are justified.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (a): Legality of Addition of Rs. 2,50,00,000/- under Section 68 read with Section 115BBE

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 68 of the Income Tax Act places the burden on the Assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of any sum credited as an unexplained cash credit or loan. Section 115BBE mandates a special rate of tax on income from undisclosed sources, applicable when income is treated as unexplained under section 68. The law requires that the Assessing Officer must not make additions without sufficient evidence and must consider all relevant documents submitted by the Assessee.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the original addition of Rs. 22,01,62,000/- was made on the ground of failure to produce documents for unsecured loans from 18 parties. However, during appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) deleted additions relating to 16 parties after considering additional evidence and remand reports, but upheld the addition of Rs. 2,50,00,000/- relating to two parties: Bhargabi Vinimav Pvt. Ltd. and Pioneer Dealtrade Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal examined the facts of these two parties in detail, including the financial statements, tax returns, bank statements, and confirmations submitted. It was observed that the Assessee had repaid Rs. 1,85,00,000/- of the loan within two days and the remaining Rs. 15,00,000/- within a month, indicating bona fide transactions.

Key Evidence and Findings: The Assessee produced confirmations from the creditors, their audited financial statements, ITR acknowledgments, and bank statements. The creditors responded to notices issued by the A.O., confirming the transactions. The balance sheets of Bhargabi Vinimav Pvt. Ltd. and Pioneer Dealtrade Pvt. Ltd. showed substantial net worth and availability of funds, negating the claim of lack of creditworthiness.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the settled principle that creditworthiness is not confined to the current year's income but includes the overall financial position and source of funds. Since the creditors were existing income tax assessees with bank accounts, and the transactions were routed through banking channels, the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness were established.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue's argument rested on the low reserve and surplus and meager income of one creditor and the general doubt on genuineness. The Tribunal rejected this, emphasizing the broader financial position and repayment pattern. The Tribunal also noted that the A.O. did not doubt the identity or creditworthiness but only the genuineness, which was sufficiently proved by the Assessee.

Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the addition of Rs. 2,50,00,000/- was not sustainable and deleted the addition.

Issue (b): Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice and Statutory Requirements

Relevant Legal Framework: Principles of natural justice require that the Assessee be given a fair opportunity to present evidence and respond to allegations before any adverse order is passed. Statutory requirements under the Income Tax Act and Rules mandate proper procedure in assessment and appellate proceedings.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal observed that the A.O. issued notices to the loan creditors and received replies, and the Assessee was allowed to produce evidence during remand proceedings under Rule 46A. The CIT(A) considered the remand report and evidence before passing the order.

Key Evidence and Findings: The Assessee's submission of confirmations, financial documents, and repayment details during remand proceedings demonstrated compliance with procedural fairness.

Application of Law to Facts: Since the Assessee was given opportunity to produce evidence and the authorities considered the same, the principles of natural justice and statutory requirements were complied with.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Assessee alleged violation of natural justice by the CIT(A) in sustaining the addition, but the Tribunal found no merit in this contention.

Conclusion: The Tribunal held that there was no violation of natural justice or statutory procedure.

Issue (c): Discharge of Onus under Section 68 by the Assessee

Relevant Legal Framework: Under section 68, the Assessee must prove the identity of the creditor, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transaction.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal examined the documentary evidence submitted by the Assessee - confirmations, ITRs, audited financial statements, bank statements, and repayment details. The creditors responded to notices, confirming the transactions.

Key Evidence and Findings: The creditors had substantial net worth and funds as per their balance sheets. The loans were repaid promptly through banking channels, which negated any suspicion of bogus entries.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the principle that the source of funds is not limited to current year income but includes overall financial capacity. The evidence satisfied the Assessee's onus under section 68.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue's doubt on genuineness was rebutted by the credible documentary evidence and repayment pattern.

Conclusion: The Tribunal found that the Assessee successfully discharged the burden under section 68.

Issue (d): Justification of Upholding Addition by CIT(A)

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The CIT(A) had confirmed the addition despite the Assessee's submission of evidence during remand proceedings. The Tribunal scrutinized the reasons given by CIT(A), particularly the focus on low reserve and surplus and meager income of one creditor, which was held to be an incomplete assessment of creditworthiness.

Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal emphasized that the CIT(A) failed to adequately consider the overall financial position, the repayment of loans, and the confirmations received from creditors.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the settled legal principles on section 68 and found the CIT(A)'s order unsustainable.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal rejected the CIT(A)'s reasoning and sided with the Assessee's submissions.

Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order sustaining the addition and allowed the appeal.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

"It is well settled law that the loan creditor creditworthiness is not only restricted to the current year income u/s 68 of the Act. What is relevant is the source and such source is not confined to current year income only. The source could be out of many factors such as money paid within its net-worth out of loan raised by them or out of income earned by them."

"Since, the transactions have been taken place by account payee cheque, the genuineness of the transaction is also established beyond doubt and the loan has been paid back through banking channel apart from proving the credit worthiness of the loan creditor."

"Considering the above facts and circumstances, we find no reason to sustain the addition, accordingly addition sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is hereby deleted."

Core principles established include the comprehensive approach to evaluating creditworthiness under section 68, which is not limited to current year income but includes overall financial capacity and source of funds; the importance of documentary evidence such as confirmations, audited financials, ITRs, and bank statements in proving genuineness; and the necessity for authorities to consider all such evidence before making additions.

Final determinations:

(i) The addition of Rs. 2,50,00,000/- on account of unsecured loans from two parties was deleted.

(ii) The Assessee discharged the onus under section 68 by proving identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions.

(iii) The principles of natural justice and statutory requirements were complied with during assessment and appellate proceedings.

(iv) The appeal was allowed in favor of the Assessee.