2025 (7) TMI 1104 - AT - Income Tax

Addition of unsecured loan as unexplained Income u/s 69A r.w.s 115BBE - additional evidence as filed by assessee - HELD THAT - Since the issue is common in both the cases the findings given in the case of Shri Jagdishkumar Gupta 2025 (7) TMI 1044 - ITAT MUMBAI applies to this case also as held additional evidences could not be filed before lower authorities for the obvious reason that the letters exchanged and the repayment of advance happened only after the orders were passed by the lower authorities. It is not in dispute that MOU dated 07.12.2021 was filed before the lower authorities including Affidavit of Sumitradevi Chaudhary and explanation furnished. It is seen that the AO has not examined Sumitradevi Chaudhary inspite of Affidavit filed by her and the lower authorities have simply relied upon the seized document for making the addition. We see no harm in restoring the issue back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication - Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal issue considered by the Appellate Tribunal (AT) in this appeal pertains to the validity of the addition of Rs. 75,00,000 made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Specifically, the question was whether the unsecured loan amounting to Rs. 75 lakhs could be treated as unexplained income under the said provisions. The Tribunal also considered the admissibility and impact of additional evidence filed by the Assessee post the lower authorities' orders, which related to the nature and source of the loan amount.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue: Validity of addition of Rs. 75,00,000 as unexplained income under section 69A read with section 115BBE

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 69A of the Income Tax Act empowers the AO to treat any sum found credited in the books of the Assessee as income if it is found to be an unexplained cash credit. Section 115BBE imposes a special rate of tax on such unexplained income. The legal question revolves around whether the unsecured loan amount was adequately explained and substantiated by the Assessee.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal referred to identical grounds and facts in a contemporaneous case involving another Assessee, wherein the issue had been examined in detail. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of additional evidence filed by the Assessee, which included correspondence and Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) related to the sale of land and advance payments made to family members. These documents were not available before the lower authorities at the time of their decision but were filed subsequently.

Key evidence and findings: The additional evidence comprised letters exchanged between the Assessee and family members with a third party, Sumitradevi Chaudhary, indicating an MOU dated 07.12.2021 for sale of land and advance payments aggregating to Rs. 6 crores. Subsequent letters showed attempts to recover the advance and termination of the MOU due to the other party's inability to pay the balance consideration. Bank statements evidencing payments aggregating to Rs. 70 lakhs were also submitted. The Assessee contended that these events occurred after the lower authorities' orders and hence could not be filed earlier.

Application of law to facts: The Tribunal noted that the MOU and an affidavit from Sumitradevi Chaudhary were already on record before the lower authorities, indicating that the amount was received as an advance for sale of land. However, the AO had not examined the deponent of the affidavit and had relied solely on seized documents to make the addition. The newly filed letters and bank statements were relevant and material to the issue, as they demonstrated the bona fide nature of the transaction and the Assessee's efforts to recover the advance.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue argued against the admission of additional evidence and upheld the addition on the basis of unexplained cash credit. The Tribunal, however, found the Assessee's explanation credible and the additional evidence pertinent and admissible since it arose after the lower authorities' orders. The Tribunal underscored that the AO had not conducted a thorough inquiry, such as examining the affidavit deponent, before making the addition.

Conclusions: The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence and set aside the issue for fresh adjudication by the AO. It directed the AO to consider all evidence afresh, provide the Assessee an opportunity of being heard, and examine any persons deemed necessary. The Tribunal refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits, leaving the matter open for de novo consideration.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Tribunal held: "We see no harm in restoring the issue back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication after considering the additional evidences now filed as also the other documentary evidences already on record and further documents that may be required or filed by the Assessee. The AO shall deal with the issue afresh after providing due opportunity to the Assessee and the AO is at liberty to call and examine any person that he may deem fit in the matter."

Core principles established include the admissibility of additional evidence that arises post the lower authorities' orders when it is relevant and material to the issue, and the necessity for the AO to conduct a comprehensive inquiry before making additions under section 69A. The Tribunal emphasized that reliance solely on seized documents without examining relevant witnesses or considering affidavits is insufficient for confirming additions.

Final determination on the issue was that the matter is remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication in light of the additional evidence, with the appeal allowed for statistical purposes pending such fresh decision.