2019 (12) TMI 1157 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal upholds deletion of unsecured loans, Rs. 1,75,00,000/- addition. AO lacked evidence, no cross-examination.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of unsecured loans, amounting to Rs. 1,75,00,000/-, as the AO relied on retracted ... Addition on account of unsecured loan and interest paid thereon - AO concluded that loans obtained by the assessee were not genuine and made an addition u/s 68 - Search and seizure action u/s.132 - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has incorporated various documents filed by assessee in respect of each party from whom loan is taken. CIT(A) has also incorporated from the balance sheet of these loan parties that they have the creditworthiness as their share capital and reserves are much more out of which loans are given to assessee company. It is also clear from the record that all the loans taken during the year were repaid in next financial year. Therefore no addition can be made.- See M/S. SKYLARK BUILD. [2018 (10) TMI 1513 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues Involved:1. Deletion of addition made on account of unsecured loans and interest paid thereon amounting to Rs. 16,14,410/-.2. Validity of the assessment proceedings and the reliance on statements made by third parties without cross-examination.Detailed Analysis:1. Deletion of Addition on Account of Unsecured Loans:The primary issue revolves around the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of unsecured loans received by the assessee from six parties, totaling Rs. 1,75,00,000/-. The AO alleged that these loans were not genuine, based on information from the investigation wing and statements made by Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain and his associates, who were purportedly involved in providing accommodation entries.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] deleted the addition, noting that the AO relied solely on the statements of Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain and others, which were later retracted. The CIT(A) emphasized that when there are contradictory statements, the retracted statement should be accepted unless proven otherwise with corroborative evidence. The AO failed to conduct independent inquiries with the lender companies to verify the genuineness of the transactions and did not provide the assessee an opportunity for cross-examination, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.The CIT(A) also highlighted that the assessee provided sufficient evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions, including income tax details, PAN, bank statements, and loan confirmations. The AO did not bring any material evidence to prove that the cash credits represented the assessee's undisclosed income.2. Validity of the Assessment Proceedings and Reliance on Third-Party Statements:The CIT(A) referenced several judicial precedents to support the principle that statements recorded behind the back of the assessee, without providing an opportunity for cross-examination, cannot be relied upon to make additions. The CIT(A) cited the Bombay High Court's decision in the case of CIT v. Ashish International, which held that the addition made based on a statement without cross-examination violated natural justice principles.Moreover, the CIT(A) noted that the AO did not discharge the onus of proving that the transactions were not genuine. The assessee had submitted all necessary documents to substantiate the genuineness of the loans, and the AO did not take steps to rebut this evidence. The CIT(A) concluded that the AO's reliance on retracted statements without further inquiry was insufficient to justify the addition.Separate Judgments and Precedents:The CIT(A) and the Tribunal referred to multiple cases, including:- CIT v. Orissa Corporation P. Ltd.: Emphasizing the duty of the AO to verify the genuineness of transactions.- M/s. Komal Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO: Highlighting the invalidity of reassessment proceedings based solely on investigation reports without independent application of mind by the AO.- M/s. Manba Finance Ltd.: Confirming the deletion of similar additions under comparable circumstances.Conclusion:The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that the assessee had discharged the onus of proving the genuineness of the loans. The AO's failure to provide an opportunity for cross-examination and to conduct independent inquiries rendered the addition unsustainable. The appeal by the revenue was dismissed, affirming the deletion of the addition and the interest disallowance.Final Pronouncement:The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, and the order was pronounced in open court on 05/12/2019.