2016 (5) TMI 243 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal overturns revenue's additions due to lack of evidence and failure to meet burden of proof.

ITO Ward-2 (2), Sahoo Bhawan, Medinipur Versus M/s Krishna Trading

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete all additions made by the AO, including unexplained cash credits, bank commission, commission ... Addition u/s 68 - Held that:- Disallowance was on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68. But the assessee has produced and explained the cash book of sister concern Suman Trading Co where the transactions with the assessee has been duly recorded and matched with the cash book. The ld. DR failed to bring anything contrary to the findings of ld. CIT(A). So we do not find any reason to say that ₹ 60 lakhs is unexplained cash. So we upheld the decision of ld. CIT(A). - Decided in favour of assessee Additions on account of the mismatch of records between M/s Shiva Cement Ltd and the assessee - Held that:- We understand that the discrepancies noted from the third party statement are not necessarily undisclosed income of the assessee.The additions cannot be merely made on the evidence collected from third parties. In our considered view we are inclined not to interfere in the order of ld. CIT(A)in deleting the addition - Decided in favour of assessee Issues Involved:1. Deletion of addition made under Section 68 of the IT Act as Unexplained Cash Credit amounting to Rs. 60 lakhs.2. Deletion of addition of Rs. 2,889 under the head Bank commission.3. Deletion of addition of Rs. 9,960 being commission received on sale of cement.4. Deletion of addition of Rs. 82,582 being reimbursement of Freight Bills not shown as income.5. Deletion of addition of Rs. 1,50,000 being security deposit not shown in the Balance Sheet.6. Deletion of addition of Rs. 10,87,817 being unrecorded purchase and sale of cement.7. Deletion of addition of Rs. 1,60,816 being Carriage Inward expenses on account of undisclosed purchases.8. Deletion of addition of Rs. 1,62,608 being Proportionate GP on undisclosed sale.9. Deletion of addition of Rs. 14,60,312 being debit entry not shown in the books of account.Detailed Analysis:1. Deletion of Addition under Section 68 (Rs. 60 Lakhs):The Revenue challenged the deletion of Rs. 60 lakhs added as unexplained cash credit under Section 68. The assessee explained that the amount was an inter-firm transfer from Suman Trading Company, mistakenly recorded by a new accountant as an unsecured loan. The CIT(A) accepted the explanation supported by the cash book and ledger of Suman Trading Co., confirming the transactions. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the Revenue failed to provide contrary evidence.2. Deletion of Addition under Bank Commission (Rs. 2,889):The AO added Rs. 2,889 as undisclosed income based on credits given by Shiva Cement Ltd. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, observing that the AO relied solely on unilateral records from Shiva Cement Ltd., which were inconsistent and lacked credibility. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), noting the lack of reliable evidence to support the addition.3. Deletion of Addition on Commission Received (Rs. 9,960):The AO added Rs. 9,960 based on discrepancies in commission received from Shiva Cement Ltd. The CIT(A) found that the AO's reliance on unilateral records from Shiva Cement Ltd. was misplaced, as the records were inconsistent. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition, citing the same reasons.4. Deletion of Addition on Freight Bills (Rs. 82,582):The AO added Rs. 82,582 as undisclosed income based on reimbursement of freight bills by Shiva Cement Ltd. The CIT(A) noted that the reimbursement was not charged to the profit and loss account and was merely a reimbursement of expenses incurred on behalf of Shiva Cement Ltd. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no evidence that the amount was debited to the profit and loss account.5. Deletion of Addition on Security Deposit (Rs. 1,50,000):The AO added Rs. 1,50,000 as undisclosed investment, which was a security deposit with Shiva Cement Ltd. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting that the payment was made from a disclosed bank account and was adjusted against a sale bill. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), finding no basis for treating the amount as an undisclosed investment.6. Deletion of Addition on Unrecorded Purchase and Sale of Cement (Rs. 10,87,817):The AO added Rs. 10,87,817 based on unrecorded sales reported by Shiva Cement Ltd. The CIT(A) found that the sales bills and delivery challans were not acknowledged by the assessee and that Shiva Cement Ltd.'s records were inconsistent. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition, citing the lack of reliable evidence.7. Deletion of Addition on Carriage Inward Expenses (Rs. 1,60,816):The AO added Rs. 1,60,816 as undisclosed purchases. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting that the AO's reliance on unilateral records from Shiva Cement Ltd. was misplaced. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no evidence to support the addition.8. Deletion of Addition on Proportionate GP (Rs. 1,62,608):The AO added Rs. 1,62,608 as proportionate GP on undisclosed sales. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, observing that the AO's reliance on unilateral records from Shiva Cement Ltd. was not justified. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no reliable evidence to support the addition.9. Deletion of Addition on Debit Entry (Rs. 14,60,312):The AO added Rs. 14,60,312 based on debit entries not shown in the assessee's books. The CIT(A) found that the AO's reliance on unilateral records from Shiva Cement Ltd. was flawed due to inconsistencies and lack of credibility in the records. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition, noting the lack of reliable evidence.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to delete all the additions made by the AO. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of reliable evidence and the unilateral nature of the records relied upon by the AO. The burden of proof lies on the Revenue to establish that the receipts are taxable income, which was not discharged in this case.