9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (5) TMI 100 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 68 - fresh unsecured loan - HELD THAT - We find that the assessee during the appellate proceedings before CIT(A) filed several evidences in support of his claim which the CIT(A) forwarded to the AO for his comment. CIT(A) on the basis of remand report and assessee s rejoinder/explanation ultimately held that major portion of loan pertained to previous years and not the impugned assessment year. CIT(A) recorded a finding of fact that only an amount of Rs 95, 00, 516/- pertained to fresh loans taken during the year and confirmed the same on account of absence of satisfactory establishment of identity creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction. No reason to interfere in the decision of the CIT(A). CIT(A) has examined the facts and evidences of the case and has considered the remand report of the AO in detail. Accordingly we sustain the addition made u/s 68 Thus Ground No. 1 of the assessee is dismissed. Addition on account of low withdrawal - CIT(A) was not justified in restricting the addition to Rs. 1 lakh. The addition on account of low withdrawal was itself made on estimate basis and the CIT(A) has failed to give any rationale for the said disallowance. We accordingly direct the AO to delete the addition on account of low withdrawal. This ground of the assessee is allowed while the ground of the Revenue is dismissed.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal are: (a) Whether the addition of Rs. 95,00,516/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act on account of fresh unsecured loans is justified, given the assessee's failure to satisfactorily establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the lenders and the transactions; (b) Whether the Assessing Officer's addition of Rs. 3,19,32,924/- on account of unexplained unsecured loans should be confirmed in entirety or restricted, considering that a part of such loans pertain to earlier assessment years and not the year under consideration; (c) Whether the addition of Rs. 2,13,827/- on account of low withdrawals should be confirmed or reduced, and the justification for restricting it to Rs. 1,00,000/- by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue (a) and (b): Addition under Section 68 on account of unsecured loans Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 68 of the Income Tax Act mandates that when an unexplained credit entry appears in the books of an assessee, the burden lies on the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the source of such credits. Failure to discharge this burden results in the addition of such unexplained credits to the income of the assessee. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Assessing Officer initially added Rs. 3,19,32,924/- to the income of the assessee on the ground that the unsecured loans credited in the books lacked proper documentation such as complete addresses, PAN details, and confirmation from the lenders, and that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the lenders. The AO also noted that interest paid on some loans was not reflected in the Profit & Loss account, further casting doubt on the genuineness of the transactions. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) examined the evidence produced by the assessee during appellate proceedings, including confirmations and explanations. The CIT(A) found that a significant portion of the loans (Rs. 2,24,32,408/-) pertained to earlier assessment years and not the year under consideration (AY 2012-13). The CIT(A) held that under Section 68, only loans credited during the relevant assessment year can be treated as income if unexplained. The CIT(A) reasoned that the AO could take remedial action under other provisions of the Act for the older loans but could not treat them as income for the current year. Consequently, the CIT(A) deleted the addition relating to Rs. 2,24,32,408/- and confirmed the addition of Rs. 95,00,516/- relating to fresh loans for which the assessee failed to establish identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness. Key evidence and findings: The assessee failed to provide complete addresses, PAN details, and proper confirmations for the loans credited during the year. The AO's attempts to verify the lenders were unsuccessful due to incomplete or old addresses and unserved notices under Section 133(6). The interest paid on some loans was not accounted for in the P&L account. The CIT(A) relied on the remand report and the assessee's rejoinder, which clarified that a large portion of the loans related to previous years. Application of law to facts: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s approach, emphasizing that Section 68 applies only to credits made during the relevant assessment year. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) correctly distinguished between fresh loans and older loans and that the AO's addition could not be sustained in respect of loans from earlier years. The Tribunal sustained the addition of Rs. 95,00,516/- on account of fresh unsecured loans due to the assessee's failure to discharge the burden of proof. Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue argued that the entire amount of Rs. 3,19,32,924/- should be added as unexplained income since the loans were credited in the year under consideration and the assessee failed to prove their genuineness. The Tribunal rejected this argument, relying on the CIT(A)'s factual finding that a substantial part of the loans pertained to earlier years and cannot be treated as income in the current year. The assessee did not appear to contest the matter further before the Tribunal. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and sustained the addition of Rs. 95,00,516/- under Section 68. The addition relating to Rs. 2,24,32,408/- was deleted as it pertained to earlier years. The assessee's appeal on this ground was dismissed. Issue (c): Addition on account of low withdrawals Relevant legal framework and precedents: Additions on account of low withdrawals are generally made on an estimate basis when the Assessing Officer finds that the assessee's withdrawals from bank accounts are disproportionately low compared to the claimed income or expenses, suggesting unaccounted cash transactions or income. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The AO made an addition of Rs. 2,13,827/- on account of low withdrawals. The CIT(A) restricted this addition to Rs. 1,00,000/-. The Tribunal found that the addition was made on an estimate basis and that the CIT(A) failed to provide any rationale for reducing the addition. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in restricting the addition without adequate reasoning. Key evidence and findings: The record showed that the addition was based on the AO's estimate. The CIT(A) did not provide any substantive basis or explanation for the reduction to Rs. 1,00,000/-. Application of law to facts: The Tribunal concluded that since the CIT(A) failed to justify the reduction, the addition on account of low withdrawals should be deleted altogether. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 2,13,827/- on this ground. Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue supported the AO's addition, while the assessee challenged it. The CIT(A) attempted a middle ground by restricting the addition. The Tribunal favored the assessee's position on this issue due to lack of justification for the CIT(A)'s partial disallowance. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal on this ground and directed deletion of the addition on account of low withdrawals. The Revenue's appeal on this issue was dismissed. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS "As per the provisions of Section 68 of the Act the old unsecured loans cannot be considered as income of the year under consideration. In case the Ld. AO has some doubt about the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction about the old unsecured loans he can take other remedial actions under the Act." "Since the appellant has not satisfactorily established the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction about the unsecured loans of Rs. 95,00,516/- taken during the year the addition is confirmed." "The addition on account of low withdrawal was itself made on estimate basis and the CIT(A) has failed to give any rationale for the said disallowance. We accordingly direct the AO to delete the addition on account of low withdrawal." Core principles established include the strict application of Section 68 only to credits pertaining to the relevant assessment year, and the necessity for the assessee to establish identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of such credits. The Tribunal also emphasized that appellate authorities must provide reasoned explanations when modifying additions made by the Assessing Officer, especially when such additions are made on an estimate basis. Final determinations: - The addition of Rs. 95,00,516/- under Section 68 on account of fresh unsecured loans is sustained. - The addition of Rs. 2,24,32,408/- relating to unsecured loans from earlier years is deleted. - The addition of Rs. 2,13,827/- on account of low withdrawals is deleted. - The assessee's appeal is partly allowed; the Revenue's appeal is dismissed.
|
