2025 (5) TMI 967 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained cash credit u/s 68 - non compliance to the notices issued u/s 133(6) or 131 - HELD THAT - The addition cannot be made merely on the ground that there was no compliance to the letter issued u/s 133(6) of the Act when assessee has filed all the details/ evidences before the ld. Assessing Officer. We also note that the loan has been repaid partially in the current year and remaining in the subsequent assessment years. When all the ingredients of section 68 were proved the addition can not be made merely on the ground that there was no compliance to the notices issued u/s 133(6) or 131 of the Act as has been held in decisions Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 1986 (3) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT Orchid Industries Ltd. 2017 (7) TMI 613 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT and Crystal Networks Pvt. Ltd. 2010 (7) TMI 841 - KOLKATA HIGH COURT . Appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal include:

(a) Whether the reopening of assessment under section 147 read with section 148 of the Income Tax Act was justified in the facts of the case;

(b) Whether the addition of Rs. 7,22,90,000/- as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act, on account of unsecured loan from Ratio Distributors Pvt. Ltd., was justified;

(c) Whether the assessee satisfactorily proved the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transactions;

(d) Whether non-compliance by the loan creditor to the notice issued under section 133(6) of the Act could be a valid ground for making the addition;

(e) The applicability and binding effect of a coordinate bench decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2017-18, which dealt with similar facts and issues;

(f) The relevance and application of judicial precedents concerning the burden of proof and evidentiary requirements under section 68 of the Act.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (a) & (b): Justification for reopening assessment and addition of unsecured loan as unexplained cash credit

The reopening of assessment was initiated under section 147 read with section 148 based on information that the assessee was a beneficiary of accommodation entries in the form of unsecured loans amounting to Rs. 8,42,26,643/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated the loan of Rs. 7,22,90,000/- from Ratio Distributors Pvt. Ltd. as unexplained cash credit under section 68, relying on the fact that the lender showed nil income and minimal share capital and expenses, indicating lack of creditworthiness to advance such a large loan.

The AO also noted that the lender did not respond to the notice issued under section 133(6) for verification of transactions. The AO concluded that the loan was an accommodation entry, with funds routed from other entities, and thus added the amount to the assessee's income.

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 68 of the Income Tax Act requires the assessee to prove the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the lender and the genuineness of the loan transaction when unexplained cash credits are detected. Non-compliance with notices under section 133(6) can be a factor but is not conclusive.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined the facts and noted that the assessee had furnished extensive documentary evidence including loan confirmations, audited financial statements, Income Tax Returns (ITR) of the lender, assessment orders of the lender, bank statements, and other relevant documents. Neither the AO nor the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] had commented on the evidences filed by the assessee but made the addition solely on the ground of non-compliance by the lender to the section 133(6) notice.

The Tribunal emphasized that addition cannot be made merely because the lender did not respond to the notice when the assessee had furnished all requisite evidence to establish the genuineness of the loan.

Key evidence and findings: The assessee's evidence included confirmation of loans, audited financials, ITR, bank statements, and assessment orders of the lender. Partial repayment of the loan during the year and full repayment in subsequent years was also noted. The Tribunal also referred to the coordinate bench decision for AY 2017-18 where loans from the same lender were similarly challenged and additions were deleted.

Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the principles under section 68 and relevant judicial precedents to hold that the assessee had discharged the burden of proof. The AO's reliance on non-compliance by the lender to the notice under section 133(6) was held insufficient to justify addition.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue relied on the AO and CIT(A) findings that the assessee was a beneficiary of accommodation entries and the lender lacked creditworthiness. The Tribunal rejected this reliance in the absence of any adverse comment on the evidences filed and in light of the coordinate bench decision.

Conclusions: The addition of Rs. 7,22,90,000/- as unexplained cash credit was not justified and was set aside.

Issue (c) & (d): Proof of identity, creditworthiness, genuineness and effect of non-compliance to section 133(6) notice

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Tribunal relied on the coordinate bench decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2017-18 and judicial precedents including:

• CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC);
• CIT vs. Orchid Industries Ltd. 397 ITR 136 (Bom);
• Crystal Networks Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 353 ITR 171 (Kol);
• ITO vs. Cygnus Developers India Pvt. Ltd.;
• Joy Consolidated Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO.

The principles established in these cases include that the assessee must prove the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the lender and genuineness of the loan transaction. Mere non-compliance by the lender to notices under section 133(6) or 131 cannot be a sole ground for making additions. The AO must independently verify and bring material to disprove the genuineness of the transaction.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal found that the assessee had furnished all relevant documents and that the AO had not brought any material to disprove the genuineness of the loan. The Tribunal also noted that the coordinate bench decision had held that all ingredients of section 68 were proved and that additions cannot be made merely because of non-compliance to notices issued under section 133(6) or 131.

Key evidence and findings: The assessee's submission of loan confirmations, audited accounts, ITRs, and bank statements, along with repayment of the loan, were considered sufficient to establish the genuineness of the transactions. The AO's failure to comment on these evidences was significant.

Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the legal principles to find that the assessee had met the burden of proof under section 68. The AO's reliance on the lender's non-response to the section 133(6) notice was held to be insufficient.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue's argument that the assessee was a beneficiary of accommodation entries was rejected due to lack of material and adverse findings on the evidence submitted by the assessee.

Conclusions: The assessee proved the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transactions, and non-compliance by the lender to the notice was not a valid ground for addition.

Issue (e): Binding effect of coordinate bench decision in assessee's own case for AY 2017-18

The Tribunal relied heavily on the coordinate bench decision for AY 2017-18, where unsecured loans from the same lender and other parties aggregating Rs. 3,49,00,000/- were challenged. The coordinate bench had deleted the additions after detailed examination of evidence, including responses to section 133(6) notices by the lenders and creditworthiness analysis.

The Tribunal noted that since the facts and evidence in the present year were substantially similar, the principle of consistency and judicial discipline required adherence to the coordinate bench decision.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Tribunal held:

"The addition cannot be made merely on the ground that there was no compliance to the letter issued u/s 133(6) of the Act when assessee has filed all the details/ evidences before the ld. Assessing Officer."

"Considering these facts of the assessee in the light of the above decisions, we are inclined to hold that the assessee has duly proved the identity and creditworthiness of the loan creditors and the genuineness of the transactions and the AO has not brought any material on record to prove to the contrary."

"So long it is not established that the return submitted by the creditor has been rejected by its Assessing Officer, the Assessing officer of the assessee is bound to accept the same as genuine when the identity of the creditor and the genuineness of transaction through account payee cheque has been established."

Core principles established include:

• The burden to prove identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of loan transactions under section 68 lies on the assessee, who can discharge it by furnishing appropriate documents.
• Non-compliance by the lender to notices under section 133(6) or 131 is not a conclusive ground for making additions if the assessee has furnished sufficient evidence.
• Assessing Officers must verify the genuineness of transactions through independent inquiry and cannot reject evidence solely on suspicion or on the basis of non-response by third parties.
• Consistency in judicial decisions requires adherence to coordinate bench rulings on similar facts.

Final determinations:

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 7,22,90,000/- made under section 68 as unexplained cash credit, thereby allowing the appeal of the assessee.