2011 (9) TMI 982 - AT - Income Tax

ITAT Chandigarh rules on unexplained cash credit under Income-tax Act

The ITAT Chandigarh partly allowed the Revenue's appeal, reversing the deletion of Rs. 42,90,000 as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the ... - Issues involved:The appeal filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act,1961.Issue 1: Appreciation of facts of the caseThe assessee raised grounds of appeal questioning the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the appeal without appreciating the facts of the case.Issue 2: Deletion of addition of unexplained loansDuring the financial year 2005-06, the assessee provided a loan of Rs. 42,90,000/- to a company. The source of this loan was questioned, and the assessee claimed it was from two individuals and agricultural income. However, the genuineness of the loans was not proven, leading to the addition of Rs. 42,90,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act.Judgment Details:The CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 42,90,000/- made by the AO, citing that the assessments of the persons who provided the loan had been accepted, and there was a blood relationship involved. The CIT(A) emphasized that if any action was necessary, it should be taken against the persons providing the loans, not the assessee.Upon careful consideration, the ITAT Chandigarh found that the assessee failed to explain the nature and source of the loans received, leading to doubts about the genuineness of the transactions. The burden of proof regarding the identity, capacity, and genuineness of the transaction lay with the assessee, which was not satisfactorily discharged. Citing legal precedents, the ITAT reversed the findings concerning one creditor, Shri Charan Singh, in favor of the revenue.Regarding the loan received from another creditor, Mrs. Sukhwinder Kaur, the ITAT noted that the agriculture income accepted by the revenue for the relevant assessment year supported the explanation of the loan. Consequently, the appeal of the Revenue concerning this creditor was dismissed.In conclusion, the appeal of the Revenue was partly allowed, with the findings pronounced in the Open Court on 30th September 2011.