2019 (3) TMI 646 - AT - Income Tax

Appeal Dismissed, Assessee's Additions Deleted.

Income Tax Officer-1, Rajnandgaon, (C.G) Versus Bhupendra Kumar Jain (HUF) And (Vice-Versa)

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting the additions of Rs. 7,49,090/- and Rs. 10,75,000/-. - Income Tax ... Unexplained cash credit u/s.68 - assessee’s contentions that it had submitted cash flow before the CIT (Appeals) and which was also sent to AO asking for his report but no comments have been offered by the Assessing Officer on such cash flow - HELD THAT:- A perusal of cash flow that is prepared by assessee and which is placed in the paper book reveals that there are certain deposits from the Karta aggregate to ₹ 8.5 lakhs which have not been considered while working out the negative cash balance. If those receipts are considered while working out the cash flow there would be no negative cash balance. In such situation we find force in the arguments of assessee and in the absence of any contrary facts placed by Revenue, we allow this ground of appeal of assessee. Addition u/s 56(2)(v) - transaction is in the nature of gift or loan - donor is not a member of HUF - HELD THAT:- We find that the confirmation and affidavit were furnished before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and on the same comments of AO was asked for but Assessing Officer has not made any adverse comments. Further, there is no material on record to demonstrate that the contents of the affidavit filed by the lender is false. Considering the totality of aforesaid facts, we are of view that assessee has explained the position about the amount being loan which has not been controverted by the Revenue. Under such circumstances no addition is called for. - Decided in favour of assessee Issues Involved:1. Deletion of addition of Rs. 43,00,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Confirmation of addition of Rs. 7,49,090/- out of total cash deposits of Rs. 43,00,000/-.3. Addition of Rs. 10,75,000/- received as an unsecured loan from Mr. M.C. Jain.Detailed Analysis:1. Deletion of Addition of Rs. 43,00,000/-:The Revenue raised the issue of whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 43,00,000/- made by the AO under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO had considered the cash deposits in the bank account as unexplained cash credit due to the absence of a satisfactory explanation from the assessee. The CIT(A), however, granted partial relief by observing that the capital and cash balances revealed sufficient balances to justify the deposits. The CIT(A) noted that the opening balance in the cash flow statement was not in doubt, but the explanation for the cash deposits was not satisfactory, leading to the confirmation of only Rs. 7,49,090/- as unexplained cash credit.2. Confirmation of Addition of Rs. 7,49,090/-:The assessee contested the confirmation of Rs. 7,49,090/- out of the total cash deposits of Rs. 43,00,000/-. The AO had prepared a cash flow chart to determine the negative cash balance, which the CIT(A) upheld. The assessee argued that the cash flow chart was incorrect and pointed to receipts from the Karta aggregating to Rs. 8.5 lakhs, which were ignored by the AO. The Tribunal found that if these receipts were considered, there would be no negative cash balance. In the absence of contrary facts from the Revenue, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting the addition of Rs. 7,49,090/-.3. Addition of Rs. 10,75,000/- as Unsecured Loan:The AO added Rs. 10,75,000/- received from Mr. M.C. Jain, treating it as a gift under Section 56(2)(v) since Mr. Jain was not a member of the HUF. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, noting inconsistencies in the assessee's explanations. Initially, the amount was claimed as a gift, but during appeal proceedings, it was stated as a loan. The CIT(A) emphasized the importance of establishing the genuineness of the transaction, which the assessee failed to do convincingly.The assessee submitted a confirmation and affidavit from Mr. M.C. Jain, stating the amount was a loan, which was later returned. The Tribunal noted that the AO had not commented adversely on the remand report concerning the affidavit. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Mehta Parikh & Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, the Tribunal held that the contents of an unchallenged affidavit could not be discarded. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 10,75,000/-.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting the additions of Rs. 7,49,090/- and Rs. 10,75,000/-. The Tribunal's decision was pronounced on 11th March 2019.