Tribunal overturns tax authority's decision, rules in favor of taxpayer in disputed transaction case.

Smt. Sudha Loyalka, C/o M/s RRA TaxIndia Versus ITO, Ward 35 (2), New Delhi

Smt. Sudha Loyalka, C/o M/s RRA TaxIndia Versus ITO, Ward 35 (2), New Delhi - TMI Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs. 3,50,94,758 on the ground that sundry creditors were not proved as genuine.
2. Charging of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Income Tax Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition of Rs. 3,50,94,758 on the Ground that Sundry Creditors were Not Proved as Genuine:

Background:
The assessee filed a return declaring taxable income of Rs. 3,52,180 for the assessment year 2012-13. The case was selected for scrutiny due to a large amount of sundry creditors. During the assessment, the Assessing Officer (AO) issued notices under section 133(6) to verify the genuineness of the creditors. Out of 27 notices, 20 were returned undelivered. The AO added Rs. 3,50,94,758 to the total income, stating that the sundry creditors were not genuine.

Appellate Proceedings:
The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], who upheld the AO's decision. The CIT(A) observed that the assessee failed to provide addresses and did not prove the genuineness of the creditors. The CIT(A) relied on several judicial precedents, including the Hon'ble Delhi High Court's decision in Modi Stone Ltd., which supported the AO's action in disallowing the amount due to lack of evidence.

Tribunal's Analysis:
The Tribunal noted several critical points:
- The AO and CIT(A) did not specify under which section of the Income Tax Act the addition was made.
- The addition could not be made under section 68 as there was no sum received from these parties during the year under appeal.
- Purchases from these parties were recorded in the books and supported by authenticated purchase bills and vouchers.
- The Tribunal cited various judicial decisions, including RAJESH P. SONI VS. ACIT and CIT vs. Vardhman Overseas Ltd, which held that credit on account of purchases cannot be added under section 68.
- The Tribunal also noted that the opening balances amounting to Rs. 1,60,19,598 were not justified for disallowance as no expense was claimed during the year under appeal.
- If the addition was made under section 41(1), the burden of proof, which rests on the revenue, was not discharged. The Tribunal cited decisions like CIT vs. Tamilnadu Warehousing Corporation and Ambica Mills Ltd vs. CIT to support this view.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the transactions were not bogus and that the authorities below were not justified in making or sustaining the addition. The total addition of Rs. 3,50,94,758 was deleted.

2. Charging of Interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Income Tax Act:

The Tribunal did not provide a detailed analysis of this issue, as the primary focus was on the addition of sundry creditors. However, given that the main addition was deleted, the associated interest charges under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C would also be impacted accordingly.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, deleting the total addition of Rs. 3,50,94,758 made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). The order was pronounced on 18.07.2018.