Tribunal Decision: Revenue Appeal Partially Allowed, Section 68 Addition Reinstated, Director's Remuneration Excluded

The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal in part, restoring certain issues to the AO for further verification. The addition of Rs. 2.90 crore under Section 68 was reinstated due to suspicions regarding the genuineness of transactions with specific parties. However, the addition of Rs. 12 lakhs for Director's remuneration was deleted, as supported by financial statements. The addition under Section 14A was also deleted since no exempt income was found. Regarding unaccounted receipts, the Tribunal directed verification of a reconciliation statement, limiting the addition to 5% of the difference. The Cross Objection by the assessee was dismissed due to a significant delay.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs. 2.90 crore under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Addition of Rs. 12 lakhs on account of Director’s remuneration.
3. Addition of Rs. 6,46,438 under Section 14A read with Rule 8D.
4. Addition of Rs. 1,03,08,430 as unaccounted receipts.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition of Rs. 2.90 crore under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act:
The AO noticed unsecured loans taken by the assessee from three parties: Haguru Engineering Pvt. Ltd. (Rs. 2,10,00,000), World Broadband Communication Ltd. (Rs. 20,00,000), and Victory Portfolio Ltd. (Rs. 60,00,000). The assessee provided ledger copies and bank statements, but the AO found that the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions were not established, leading to an addition of Rs. 2.90 crore under Section 68. The CIT(A) deleted this addition after considering additional evidences and remand report. However, upon further examination, the Tribunal found that the bank transactions raised suspicions about the genuineness of the transactions, especially with Haguru Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and Victory Portfolio Ltd. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for further verification, directing the assessee to furnish satisfactory documentary evidence.

2. Addition of Rs. 12 lakhs on account of Director’s remuneration:
The AO disallowed Rs. 12 lakhs paid to Director Suraj Mal Dabas due to lack of justification. The CIT(A) deleted the addition based on the AO's remand report, which accepted the work done by Suraj Mal Dabas supported by financial statements and operational documents. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no reason for interference.

3. Addition of Rs. 6,46,438 under Section 14A read with Rule 8D:
The AO made an addition under Section 14A read with Rule 8D for investments made to earn exempt income. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, finding that there was no exempt income. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), stating that no addition is to be made under Section 14A if there is no exempt income.

4. Addition of Rs. 1,03,08,430 as unaccounted receipts:
The AO noticed a discrepancy between contract receipts shown in the assessee's P&L account (Rs. 20,18,12,138) and Form 26AS (Rs. 21,26,63,118), leading to an addition of Rs. 1,08,50,980. The CIT(A) restricted this addition to 5% of the difference, confirming Rs. 5,42,550. The Tribunal found that the assessee provided a reconciliation statement before the Tribunal but not before the AO or CIT(A). The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for verification of the reconciliation statement, directing the assessee to provide a satisfactory explanation.

Cross Objection by the Assessee:
The Cross Objection (CO) was barred by 1223 days. The Tribunal found no merit in the counsel’s explanation for the delay, noting that the counsel was aware of the appeal since 28.02.2019 but did not file the CO on time. The Tribunal declined to condone the delay, dismissing the CO.

Conclusion:
The appeal of the Revenue was allowed in part for statistical purposes, and the Cross Objection of the assessee was not admitted. The Tribunal restored certain issues to the AO for further verification and directed the assessee to provide satisfactory documentary evidence.

---