2025 (5) TMI 1713 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 - AO disallowed the unsecured loans taken -transactions of the Director of the company unexplained - as per AO assessee had satisfactorily established identity of the lender the creditworthiness of the lender and the genuineness of the transaction HELD THAT - CIT (A) has failed to give one more opportunity to the assessee in our considered view the detailed evidences filed by the assessee before us clearly indicate that assessee has submitted confirmation letters from both the parties which are placed on record. With regard to the transactions of the Director of the company assessee has filed the confirmations detailing various transactions carried on with the assessee as a running account in its books of account. It clearly indicates that assessee has given funds to the Director to carry on business activities involving Rs. 4, 38, 65, 000/- and the Director has lent the money to the assessee company and also assessee has repaid the same during the year and the final outstanding balance at the end was of Rs. 4, 90, 000/- and the same was added by the AO as unsecured loan. Since Shri Amit Mittal is a Director of the company there is no requirement for the assessee company to submit identity and creditworthiness of the Director and with regard to genuineness of the transaction we observed that it is a running account maintained by the assessee to meet out the short term requirement for the purpose of business. Therefore the genuineness has already been proved in this regard. Coming to the unsecured loan received from Kamdhenu we observed that assessee has submitted confirmation letter and also bank statement indicating the transfer of funds through banking channel it also explained the source of source for the same. We observed that Kamdhenu has closed term deposit prematurely to transfer the abovesaid funds to the assessee. It clearly shows that it has surplus funds available with them which were transferred to the assessee as unsecured loan and these documents clearly show that vital ingredients of section 68 are already proved by the assessee by bringing on abovesaid documents which were in fact filed before the ld. CIT (A) who has not appreciated the same. Grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.

The core legal issues considered in this appeal pertain to the applicability and interpretation of section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, specifically regarding the treatment of unsecured loans received by the assessee company. The Tribunal examined whether the assessee had satisfactorily established the three vital ingredients mandated under section 68, namely the identity of the lender, the creditworthiness of the lender, and the genuineness of the transaction. A related procedural issue involved the admissibility and procedural compliance concerning the submission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 during appellate proceedings.

Regarding the first issue-whether the unsecured loans from Kamdhenu Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Amit Mittal, Director of the company, were rightly disallowed under section 68-the Tribunal analyzed the statutory framework and evidentiary requirements. Section 68 places the onus on the assessee to prove the identity of the creditor, the creditworthiness of the creditor, and the genuineness of the transaction when unexplained cash credits or loans appear in the books of account. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer (AO) had disallowed the loans due to non-compliance by the assessee in furnishing relevant details during assessment proceedings, including failure of the creditors to respond to notices issued under section 133(6) of the Act.

The AO's disallowance was premised on the absence of bank statements and confirmations from the lenders during the assessment stage, leading to the invocation of section 144 for non-compliance and consequent addition of Rs. 1,07,82,932/- under section 68. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) upheld the AO's order, emphasizing that the bank statements submitted during appellate proceedings could not be admitted as evidence due to the lack of an application under Rule 46A, which governs the admission of additional evidence at the appellate stage. The CIT(A) relied on judicial precedents to conclude that the assessee failed to establish the essential ingredients of section 68.

In contrast, the assessee contended that confirmations, Income Tax Returns (ITRs), audited financial statements of the lenders, and bank statements submitted before the CIT(A) sufficiently demonstrated the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loans. Specifically, for Shri Amit Mittal, the Director, the assessee argued that since he was a director, there was no requirement to prove identity and creditworthiness, and the genuineness was evident from the running account transactions amounting to Rs. 4,33,75,000/- during the year. For Kamdhenu, the assessee submitted confirmations, bank statements showing transfer of funds through banking channels, and evidence of premature closure of term deposits to fund the loan, thereby establishing surplus funds and genuineness.

The Tribunal's reasoning acknowledged that while the assessee failed to submit these documents during the assessment proceedings, the evidence was placed before the CIT(A). The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) did not provide the assessee an opportunity to cure procedural defects related to Rule 46A compliance for admitting additional evidence. The Tribunal held that the failure to allow such opportunity was a procedural lapse. Upon examining the evidence, the Tribunal found that the confirmations, bank statements, and explanations demonstrated the identity and creditworthiness of Kamdhenu and the genuineness of the transactions with both lenders. Regarding the Director, the Tribunal reiterated that identity and creditworthiness need not be separately established, and the genuineness was supported by the running account nature of the transactions.

The Tribunal applied the law to the facts by concluding that the assessee had discharged the burden under section 68 through the evidence submitted, notwithstanding procedural irregularities. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's reliance on non-compliance during assessment and the CIT(A)'s strict approach to Rule 46A, emphasizing the principle that procedural lapses should not result in denial of substantive rights when the evidence is otherwise sufficient. Competing arguments from the Revenue, which stressed procedural non-compliance and reliance on earlier judicial decisions upholding strict adherence to evidentiary rules, were found less persuasive in light of the substantial documentary evidence and the failure of the CIT(A) to allow rectification.

The Tribunal concluded by deleting the additions made under section 68 relating to unsecured loans from Kamdhenu and Shri Amit Mittal, thereby allowing the appeal.

Significant holdings include the Tribunal's explicit recognition that:

"Since Shri Amit Mittal is a Director of the company, there is no requirement for the assessee company to submit identity and creditworthiness of the Director and with regard to genuineness of the transaction, we observed that it is a running account maintained by the assessee to meet out the short term requirement for the purpose of business. Therefore, the genuineness has already been proved in this regard."

Further, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of procedural fairness:

"The ld. CIT (A) ... failed to give one more opportunity to the assessee to rectify the procedural defects in filing the additional evidences before him."

And finally, the Tribunal affirmed the sufficiency of the evidence submitted:

"The confirmation letter and bank statement indicating the transfer of funds through banking channel ... clearly show that vital ingredients of section 68 of the Act are already proved by the assessee ... Therefore, we are inclined to delete both the additions made by the AO."

These holdings underscore core principles that while procedural compliance is important, it should not override substantive justice where the assessee has furnished credible evidence to establish identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of loans under section 68. The Tribunal's decision clarifies that directors' loans do not require separate proof of identity and creditworthiness and that appellate authorities should provide reasonable opportunities to rectify procedural defects in admitting evidence.

← Previous Next →