2012 (11) TMI 938 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal allows Revenue's appeal, sets aside CIT(A)'s order on unexplained cash credits. Fresh assessment ordered.

The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal for statistical purposes, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order that deleted the addition made under Section 68 of ... Addition u/s 68 - creditworthiness of the parties who advanced the loans – Held that:- CIT(A) deleted the addition on the ground that genuineness is not doubted by the AO - it is not known as to why a housewife will take a loan from somebody or even from her brother, just in order to advance loan to the assessee and why she takes so much of risk when this investment is not safe - findings of the AO show that he has doubted the genuineness of the transactions, therefore, the observations of the CIT(A) that the AO has not doubted the genuineness of the transactions are not proper - CIT(A) without considering the issue properly, deleted the addition made by the AO – matter remanded to AO Issues Involved:1. Deletion of addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act regarding unexplained cash credits.2. Examination of the genuineness and creditworthiness of the creditors.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Deletion of Addition under Section 68:The Revenue's appeal challenges the order of CIT(A) which deleted the addition of Rs. 69,50,170/- made under Section 68 concerning alleged loans taken from various parties. The AO had treated these loans as unexplained cash credits due to the assessee's failure to establish the capacity and creditworthiness of the creditors.2. Examination of Genuineness and Creditworthiness:a. Findings of the Assessing Officer (AO):- Mrs. Babita Khandelwal: The AO noted that her capital of Rs. 11,48,812/- was insufficient to advance a loan of Rs. 18.49 lakhs. She had no other income source except interest, and her account was used for fund rotation by Kataria Group, indicating an unexplained cash credit.- Shri Chandrakant Mehta: With an income of Rs. 2,81,565/-, he lacked the creditworthiness to advance Rs. 36,50,170/-. The AO found discrepancies in his capital gains and bank deposits, treating the amount as unexplained cash credit.- Smt. Nirmaladevi Bhandari: She had an income of Rs. 69,090/- and a credit balance of Rs. 854/-. The AO found her bank deposits suspicious and treated the loan as unexplained cash credit.- Smt. Sushiladevi Bhandari: With an income of Rs. 60,310/- and a credit balance of Rs. 715/-, her loan was also treated as unexplained cash credit due to unexplained deposits.- Shri Sanjivkumar Murarka: The AO noted unexplained credits in his bank account just before giving a loan, treating it as unexplained cash credit.b. Order of CIT(A):- The CIT(A) found that the assessee had submitted loan confirmations, bank statements, and IT returns of the creditors, proving their identity, genuineness, and capacity. The CIT(A) cited several judgments supporting the assessee's position, concluding that the AO erred in making the addition without appreciating the evidence provided.c. Tribunal's Observations:- The Tribunal noted that the AO had indeed doubted the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions, contrary to CIT(A)'s observations. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not properly consider the AO's findings and the evidence provided. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a thorough examination of the issue.Conclusion:The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the issue to the file of the AO for a de-novo decision, ensuring a comprehensive review of the genuineness and creditworthiness of the creditors, in accordance with the law and after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.Judgment:The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes.