2025 (5) TMI 1406 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s. 68 - loans received from three parties - CIT(A) deleted addition - HELD THAT - CIT(A) narrating the complete details which remain uncontroverted at the end of ld. Departmental Representative we fail to find any infirmity in the finding of ld.CIT(A) deleting the impugned addition Disallowance of purchase - Net profit of 9.34% is declared by the assessee and the turnover of the assessee has reached to the extent of Rs. 4.64 crore during the year as against 0.30 crore in the preceding year - HELD THAT - Where the alleged expenditure is duly supported with Invoices payment made through banking channel Tax deducted at Source Sales/Gross Receipts quantum not in dispute we also observe that assessee has declared net profit of 9.34% along with increase in the turnover during the year by almost 15 times. Even for sake of argument it is assumed that the alleged purchases are non genuine then also last resort will be to estimate the profits on the total turnover. There has been plethora of cases where such estimation of profit has been made to the extent of 8% applying Presumptive Rate of Taxation u/s. 44AD of the Act where the assessee has not maintained proper/ no books of account. Therefore since the net profit declared by the assessee is higher than 8% we fail to find any merit in the ground No.2 raised by the Revenue. Even though ld. CIT(A) has given a finding accepting the genuineness of purchases we uphold the same on the ground that assessee has offered better net profit rate of 9.34% which is above 8% provided u/s. 44AD. Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

The core legal questions considered in this appeal pertain to the validity of additions and disallowances made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under the Income-tax Act, 1961, specifically:

1. Whether the addition of Rs. 50,00,000 under section 68 of the Act, representing loans received from three parties, was justified given the genuineness and creditworthiness of the loan creditors.

2. Whether the disallowance of Rs. 65,83,496 under section 37 of the Act, relating to purchases from two parties, was warranted in light of the evidence of genuineness of expenses and submission of invoices.

3. Whether the appellate authority erred in deleting the additions and disallowances made by the AO.

Issue 1: Addition of Rs. 50,00,000 under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act

Legal framework and precedents: Section 68 of the Income-tax Act deals with unexplained cash credits. The burden lies on the assessee to explain the nature and source of such credits. The genuineness of the transaction, identity, and creditworthiness of the creditor are critical factors. The Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. A. Raman & Co. was relied upon, which emphasizes that non-charging of interest does not negate the genuineness of a loan transaction if the transaction is otherwise genuine.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined the details and documents furnished by the assessee for loans received from three parties: Pawar Sivadas Damu (Rs. 20,00,000), Usha Jagdish Tisge (Rs. 1,00,000), and Rupali Chandrakant Nikam (Rs. 29,00,000). It was noted that all loans were routed through banking channels, and the identities of the creditors were undisputed.

For Pawar Sivadas Damu, the Tribunal observed that the funds originated from a third party (Shri Baliram Damu Pawar), whose source was not required to be proved as per the assessment year rules. The loan was partly repaid and adjusted against sales, indicating genuine transactions. The AO and the remand authority failed to produce any material contradicting these facts.

Regarding Rupali Chandrakant Nikam, the Tribunal meticulously analyzed the bank statements evidencing the flow of funds from her father to her account and subsequently to the assessee. The absence of a balance sheet for Rupali was explained by her being an individual not engaged in business. The Tribunal rejected the remand authority's bald assertion that the flow of funds was unproven, emphasizing that the loan was initially treated as an advance for purchase of a flat and was later converted into a sale, thus excluding the applicability of section 68.

For Usha Jagdish Tisge, the Tribunal found the identity undisputed, the loan routed through banking channels, and sufficient bank balance on the date of loan. Her status as a retired government employee was also noted.

Key evidence and findings: Bank statements, ledger accounts, remand reports, and absence of contradictory evidence from the AO or remand authority were pivotal. The Tribunal emphasized payments through banking channels, repayment and adjustment of loans, and the absence of any material to establish non-genuineness.

Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the principles under section 68, holding that the assessee had satisfactorily explained the nature, source, and genuineness of the loans. The non-charging of interest was not a factor to disbelieve the genuineness.

Treatment of competing arguments: The AO and Departmental Representative (DR) argued non-establishment of creditworthiness and source of funds, but failed to provide material evidence. The Tribunal found these arguments unsubstantiated.

Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition of Rs. 50,00,000 under section 68, dismissing the Revenue's ground on this issue.

Issue 2: Disallowance of Rs. 65,83,496 under Section 37 of the Income-tax Act

Legal framework and precedents: Section 37 allows deduction of business expenses not otherwise disallowed. The genuineness of expenses and their nexus to business are essential. The Tribunal also referenced the presumptive taxation scheme under section 44AD, which prescribes a minimum profit rate of 8% for businesses not maintaining proper books.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal considered the purchases from Rahul Jagdale (Rs. 11,13,250) and M/s. R.K. Enterprises (Rs. 54,70,246). It was noted that invoices and ledger accounts were produced, payments were made through banking channels, and tax was deducted at source (TDS). The AO's objection regarding non-submission of some bills and non-mention of GST number on invoices was considered insufficient to disallow expenses, especially in absence of any investigation or verification report indicating bogus transactions.

The Tribunal observed that the net profit declared by the assessee was 9.34%, higher than the preceding year's 6.08% and above the 8% presumptive profit rate under section 44AD. This indicated no inflation of expenses.

Key evidence and findings: Invoices, bank statements, ledger accounts, TDS certificates, and profit and loss statements were examined. The absence of any contradictory evidence from the AO or investigating agencies was significant.

Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the principle that expenses supported by documentary evidence, paid through banking channels, and subjected to TDS cannot be disallowed merely on procedural grounds like non-response to notices. The declared net profit exceeding the presumptive rate further negated the possibility of bogus expenses.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue's argument focused on non-submission of bills and lack of GST numbers. The Tribunal rejected these as insufficient grounds, emphasizing the absence of any material to prove non-genuineness or non-existence of parties.

Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the deletion of disallowance under section 37, dismissing the Revenue's ground on this issue.

Significant holdings and core principles established:

1. "The genuineness of the receipt cannot be doubted since the loan was received through banking channel... The appellant need not prove the creditworthiness of Shri Baliram Damu Pawar since for this assessment year there is no requirement to prove the source of source by the appellant."

2. "The loan of Rs. 20,00,000/- received by the appellant from Shri Pawar Shivdas Damu cannot be treated as unexplained."

3. "It is proved beyond doubt that Smt Rupali Chandrakanth Nikam is having adequate source to lend the amount to the appellant... The appellant is found to have duly substantiated the source of Smt Rupali Chandrakanth Nikam and is not obliged to prove the source of Shri Vinayak P Rade."

4. "Since the flat was subsequently registered, the absence of agreement has no impact on the case of the appellant... Thus, provisions of section 68 of the Act cannot be applied in respect of a sale transaction."

5. "Genuineness of the expenses cannot be doubted when the payments are subjected to TDS and paid through banking channel... Mere noncompliance to the notice issued u/s. 133(6) can never be a ground to doubt the genuineness expenses claimed by the appellant."

6. "The NP ratio of the appellant for the impugned assessment year is 9.34% which is more than the NP Ratio of 6.08% declared for the earlier A.Y.2017-18... Under these circumstances the undersigned is of the considered opinion that inflation of expenses by booking these two expenses as bogus is ruled out."

7. "Even for sake of argument it is assumed that the alleged purchases are non genuine, then also, last resort will be to estimate the profits on the total turnover... since the net profit declared by the assessee is higher than 8%, we fail to find any merit in the ground No.2 raised by the Revenue."

The Tribunal concluded by dismissing the Revenue's appeal, thereby confirming the deletion of additions under section 68 and disallowances under section 37. The decision underscores the importance of substantiating transactions with credible documentary evidence, the adequacy of banking channel transactions as proof of genuineness, and the relevance of declared net profit ratios in assessing the validity of claimed expenses in income tax assessments.

← Previous Next →