2025 (6) TMI 1982 - AT - Income Tax

Addition on account of loan u/s. 68 - genuineness of the transaction - onus to prove the genuineness of the loan - identity and the creditworthiness of lender - HELD THAT - The pattern of ledger account goes to show that there are regular transactions with the said party. Thus in such a situation it cannot be held that it is a case of some kind of an entry provider as alleged by the ld. AO. AO has mostly relied upon the extraneous information received to him of the lender parties without even examining the nature of transaction bank statements and the position of funds in the balance sheet to see the creditworthiness. The net income shown in the return of income cannot be the criteria for judging the source of income albeit one has to see overall availability of the funds disclosed in the balance sheet bank statement and the nature of transaction. If the AO has to inquire upon the source of funds in the hands of lender companies then he has to inquire from these companies. Assessee as the law prevalent at that point of time was required to prove the source of the source. It is only when some material has been found that assessee is beneficiary and assessee has unaccounted money routed through these companies then ostensibly sources of funds can be inquired upon. Here in this case there were regular transactions and assessee has also advance loan to these companies which was repaid back. Under these facts once identity and the creditworthiness is proved from the records and genuineness of the transaction has not been disproved as noticed from the entries in the bank statement and copy of ledger account then it cannot be deemed to be unaccounted money or credit from undisclosed sources. Ld. AO has not verified the ledger account properly the overall nature of debit and credit entries for all the three parties. If the parties have shown enough sources to advance the loan and in most of the cases it was repayment of loan given by the assessee and being a NBFC company it has to receive the funds and give loans on interest to these parties. Therefore to treat even the repayment of loan given by the assessee to these parties as unexplained loan received cannot be sustained. AO has drawn inferences by the fact that in the case of M/s Carron Investments Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Naurus Tradestar Pvt. Ltd. that the Directors of this company was one residing in a small flat in Bhayender (E) whether that person was examined about the transaction undertaken by the assessee and the lender company has not been brought on record. The ld. AO based on this information should have been at least carried out some enquiry to find out the genuineness of the transaction and the source of the funds from these companies. As stated above here in this case there is a huge transaction between two companies i.e. assessee and the lender companies as assessee had advanced loan in the earlier years which had been repaid back and further assessee is also received loan which again has been repaid during the year or in the subsequent year. Such a running account of transactions cannot be held to be that these companies were providing accommodation entry. Thus on these facts we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the said additions qua all the three companies. Thus the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed. Addition of commission expenses - Once the assessee has given the details and invoices in respect of commission expenses then ld. AO should have verified the same from the parties. However in these facts we feel that this issue needs to be restored back to the file of the ld. AO to examine the evidences and carry out necessary inquiry and assessee has to substantiate the payment of commission to these parties that it relates to its business of financial dealings of borrowing and lending. Accordingly ground No.5 is allowed for statistical purposes. Addition made as assessee had not been able to discharge the onus - HELD THAT - Counsel pointed out that ld. AO has confirmed the addition that assessee has not filed the PAN therefore now the PAN is available which was filed before us as additional evidence. Further he submitted that the loan has been repaid back to the said person Shri Gaurishankar Deora. On the facts of the case we feel that this matter should be restored back to the file of the ld. AO to examine the genuineness of the loan given by the said party of Rs. 30, 00, 000/- and assessee has to substantiate the said loan within the parameters of Section 68 . Disallowance of expenditure u/s. 35D(2) - assessee has increased its authorised share capital during the financial year under consideration and incurred expenses - HELD THAT - The additional share capital was raised by issue of bonus shares in the ratio of 1 1. Once authorised share capital has been increased to issue bonus shares which have been issued by capitalizing free reserves it tantamount to re-allocation of the company s funds. There is no inflow of fresh funds or increase in the capital as it remained the same. The issue of bonus shares has not resulted in extension of capital base of the company. The aforesaid observation and the principle laid down in the case of CIT vs. General Insurance Corporation 2006 (9) TMI 116 - SUPREME COURT as highlighted above by the ld. CIT(A) is clearly applicable on these facts and therefore order of the ld. CIT(A) following judgments of the Hon ble Supreme Court is upheld. Accordingly ground Nos. 1 2 raised by the Revenue are dismissed.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Appellate Tribunal in this matter include:

(a) Whether expenses incurred on increase in authorized share capital qualify as revenue expenditure or capital expenditure, particularly in light of the provisions of Section 35D(2) of the Income Tax Act and relevant judicial precedents.

(b) Whether the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case concerning issuance of bonus shares is applicable to the present facts involving increase in authorized share capital.

(c) Whether additions made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act on account of unsecured loans received from certain parties should be sustained, considering the genuineness, identity, creditworthiness of the lenders, and the nature of transactions.

(d) Whether the interest paid on purported bogus unsecured loans should be disallowed.

(e) Whether the addition of commission expenses disallowed by the Assessing Officer (AO) due to lack of satisfactory explanation and documentary evidence should be upheld.

(f) Whether the assessee has discharged the onus to prove the genuineness of loans taken from a particular lender where PAN details were initially not furnished.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issues (a) and (b): Treatment of expenses incurred on increase in authorized share capital

Relevant legal framework includes Section 35D(2) of the Income Tax Act, which provides for capital expenditure incurred before commencement of business or in connection with extension or setting up of new units to be allowed as deduction over ten or five successive years. The Revenue contended that expenses on increase in authorized share capital should be treated as capital expenditure and allowed deduction accordingly.

The Tribunal examined the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in CIT vs. General Insurance Corporation, which held that expenses incurred on issuance of bonus shares are revenue expenditure, as issuance of bonus shares is a mere reallocation of funds without inflow of fresh funds or increase in capital base. The Supreme Court distinguished between raising fresh capital (capital expenditure) and issuance of bonus shares (revenue expenditure).

Applying this precedent, the Tribunal observed that in the present case, the assessee increased authorized share capital to issue bonus shares by capitalizing free reserves, which did not result in any inflow of fresh funds or expansion of capital base. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition, holding that the expenditure was revenue in nature and allowable as claimed.

Competing arguments by Revenue that the Supreme Court decision was not applicable were rejected, as the facts aligned with the principles laid down in the precedent.

Conclusion: Expenses on increase in authorized share capital for issuance of bonus shares are revenue expenditure; addition disallowed.

Issue (c) and (d): Additions under Section 68 on unsecured loans and interest paid thereon

The AO made additions totaling Rs. 60.59 crores on account of unsecured loans received from four parties, alleging that these were accommodation entries or bogus loans. The AO relied on various factors including:

• Common directors among lender companies and their suspicious financial profiles (meager paid-up capital, negligible income).
• Statements from a third party involved in accommodation entries implicating one lender company.
• Non-cooperation of directors in summons issued under Section 131.
• Findings from assessments of lender companies indicating dubious business activity.
• Bank statement entries showing fund rotations among related parties.

The assessee responded by furnishing extensive documentary evidence including PAN details, Income Tax Returns (ITRs), audited financial statements, bank statements, ledger confirmations, and ledger accounts showing running accounts and repayment of loans. The assessee argued that these documents established the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the lenders, and that the AO failed to conduct proper inquiries or verify the evidence.

The CIT(A) analyzed the facts and documents in detail. It noted that the legislature had amended Section 68 w.e.f. 01.04.2013 to require proving "source of source" only in case of share capital, and not for loans during the relevant year. The CIT(A) found that for three parties (Allbright Electricals Pvt. Ltd., Carron Investment Pvt. Ltd., and Novus Tradestar Pvt. Ltd.), the assessee had furnished adequate evidence of identity and genuineness. The CIT(A) held that mere non-appearance of directors or weak financials of lenders was insufficient to disallow the loans. The CIT(A) also observed that the AO had not disproved the documentary evidence nor demonstrated any specific link implicating the assessee in accommodation entries.

However, for the fourth party, Shri Gaurishankar Deora, the assessee failed to provide PAN, ITRs, or bank statements, and thus the CIT(A) confirmed addition of Rs. 30 lakhs on account of unexplained credit.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings, emphasizing the running accounts between the assessee and Allbright Electricals Pvt. Ltd., including repayments and advances, which negated the claim of accommodation entries. It also held that the AO's reliance on extraneous information without verifying the documentary evidence was improper. The Tribunal noted that the AO did not conduct adequate inquiries from the lender companies or their directors and failed to examine the source of funds properly.

Regarding interest paid on alleged bogus loans, the CIT(A) deleted the addition, and the Tribunal found no infirmity in this deletion.

Conclusion: Additions on account of unsecured loans from three parties deleted; addition on loan from fourth party confirmed due to lack of evidence.

Issue (e): Addition of commission expenses disallowed by AO

The AO disallowed commission expenses of Rs. 43,17,000/- on the ground that the assessee did not provide satisfactory details of the nature and quantity of services rendered. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting that the assessee had furnished PAN details and invoices, and the AO had not made any independent inquiry to contradict the assessee's claim. The Tribunal observed that the AO's contradictory statements regarding documentary evidence were unacceptable and directed that the issue be restored to the AO for further inquiry and verification.

Conclusion: Addition deleted but issue restored to AO for verification and inquiry.

Issue (f): Disallowance of Rs. 30,00,000/- loan from Shri Gaurishankar Deora

The AO and CIT(A) confirmed addition for Rs. 30 lakhs on account of unsecured loan where the assessee failed to furnish PAN and other supporting documents. The assessee submitted PAN before the Tribunal and argued that the loan was repaid.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes and restored the matter to the AO to verify genuineness of the loan in light of the newly furnished PAN and other evidence.

Conclusion: Addition set aside and matter remanded for fresh examination.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

On the issue of expenditure on increase in authorized share capital, the Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's reasoning verbatim:

"As observed earlier, the issue of bonus shares by capitalization of reserves is merely a reallocation of company's funds. There is no inflow of fresh funds or increase in the capital employed, which remains the same. If that be so, then it cannot be held that the company has acquired a benefit or advantage of enduring nature. The total funds available with the company will remain the same and the issue of bonus shares will not result in any change in the capital structure of the company. Issue of bonus shares does not result in the expansion of capital base of the company."

This principle was applied to hold that expenses incurred for increase in authorized share capital to issue bonus shares are revenue expenditure.

Regarding additions under Section 68, the Tribunal emphasized the burden on the assessee to prove identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the lender. It held that furnishing PAN, ITRs, audited financials, bank statements, ledger confirmations, and showing transactions through banking channels sufficiently discharges this burden. Mere weak financials of lenders or non-appearance of directors without further inquiry is insufficient to treat loans as unexplained credits.

The Tribunal also clarified that for the relevant assessment year, the requirement to prove "source of source" applied only to share capital and not to loans, as per legislative amendments.

On the commission expenses, the Tribunal underscored the necessity of AO conducting proper inquiries before making disallowances and criticized contradictory findings without independent verification.

Finally, the Tribunal demonstrated procedural fairness by remanding the matter relating to the loan from Shri Gaurishankar Deora for fresh examination in light of additional evidence.