Tribunal decision: Revenue's appeal partly allowed on unexplained cash credit, deletion upheld for unexplained investment.

The tribunal partly allowed the revenue's appeal, restoring the Assessing Officer's addition under section 68 for unexplained cash credit. However, the tribunal upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)'s deletion of the addition for unexplained investment. The decision was pronounced on 11th April 2018.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition on account of unexplained cash credit under section 68.
2. Deletion of addition on account of unexplained investment.

Issue 1: Deletion of Addition on Account of Unexplained Cash Credit under Section 68

The revenue challenged the deletion of Rs. 40,26,000/- added by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) as unexplained cash credit under section 68. The A.O. noticed cash deposits of Rs. 40,26,000/- in the assessee's bank account and required an explanation for the source. The assessee claimed the cash was received from friends and relatives for investments in commodity exchange and provided a list of sixteen persons. Six of these persons were summoned and confirmed the transactions, but the A.O. found they were not assessed to tax and lacked financial capacity. Consequently, the A.O. added the entire amount to the assessee's income as unexplained cash credit.

The assessee appealed, and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] deleted the addition, reasoning that the identity of the creditors was established, and they owned up the transactions. The CIT(A) cited various judgments, including Aravali Trading Co. vs ITO, to support the view that once the identity of the creditors is proved, the onus is discharged.

The revenue argued that the financial capacity of the creditors was not established, and the CIT(A) overlooked this aspect. The revenue cited the case of Mihir Kanti Hazra, emphasizing the need to prove the creditworthiness of creditors. The assessee's counsel argued that the assessment was completed in haste, and only six creditors were summoned. The counsel suggested remanding the matter to the A.O. for further verification if necessary.

The tribunal found that the financial capacity of the creditors was not established, as they were not assessed to tax and lacked regular income or bank accounts. The tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s view was contrary to the settled law, which requires proving the creditworthiness of creditors. The tribunal restored the A.O.'s addition under section 68, allowing the revenue's appeal on this ground.

Issue 2: Deletion of Addition on Account of Unexplained Investment

The revenue challenged the deletion of Rs. 3,63,300/- added by the A.O. as unexplained investment. The A.O. noted that the assessee made an investment in land on 22.11.2011 but showed it in the cash book on 31.03.2012 for Rs. 3,15,500/-. The A.O. added Rs. 3,63,300/- as unexplained investment due to the discrepancy in dates and amounts.

The assessee appealed, and the CIT(A) deleted the addition, reasoning that the investment was reflected in the balance sheet and the discrepancy in dates was not significant. The CIT(A) noted that the assessee was not required to maintain books of accounts under section 44AB and had produced necessary documents.

The tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), finding that the investment was duly reflected in the balance sheet and the A.O.'s conclusion was unjustified. The tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal on this ground.

Conclusion:

The appeal of the revenue is partly allowed. The tribunal restored the A.O.'s addition under section 68 for unexplained cash credit but upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition for unexplained investment. The order was pronounced in the open court on 11th April 2018.

---