Assessee's appeal dismissed for lack of evidence, upholding Rs. 5 lakh addition under Section 68

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal and upheld the addition of Rs. 5 lakhs under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The decision was based on the lack of credible evidence supporting the loan's genuineness and the lender's financial capacity. The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s ruling, emphasizing the insufficiency of proof provided by the assessee. The order was pronounced on 26/03/2019.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs. 5 lakhs under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as unexplained cash credit.
2. Genuineness and creditworthiness of the loan transaction.
3. Evaluation of evidence and statements provided by the lender.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition of Rs. 5 lakhs under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as unexplained cash credit:
The assessee contested the addition of Rs. 5 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 68 of the Act. The AO found the source of the loan received by the assessee unsatisfactory. The lender, a retired government employee, deposited Rs. 5 lakhs in cash into his bank account immediately before lending the same amount to the assessee. The AO concluded that the cash deposit was not from known sources and added the amount to the assessee's total income.

2. Genuineness and creditworthiness of the loan transaction:
The CIT(A) upheld the AO's addition, noting that the lender did not have a regular income source and that the cash deposit was an isolated transaction. The lender's claim of agricultural income was unsupported by evidence, and the bank account was opened only in the relevant year. The CIT(A) cited various judgments, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. P. Mohanakaia, emphasizing that transactions through bank cheques alone do not establish genuineness.

3. Evaluation of evidence and statements provided by the lender:
The Tribunal examined the lender's financial capacity and the circumstances surrounding the loan. The lender's bank statement showed minimal balance, raising doubts about his ability to lend Rs. 5 lakhs. The Tribunal noted that the lender withdrew Rs. 25,000 to Rs. 30,000 per month from his pension for household expenses, making the large cash deposit implausible. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee failed to discharge the primary onus of proving the loan's genuineness and creditworthiness.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision. The addition of Rs. 5 lakhs under Section 68 of the Act was upheld due to the lack of credible evidence supporting the loan's genuineness and the lender's financial capacity. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and declined to interfere.

Order Pronouncement:
The order was pronounced in open court on 26/03/2019.

---