2020 (6) TMI 583 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Upheld Deletion of Additions under Income Tax Act Sections

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions under Sections 69C and 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, made by the Assessing Officer. In the first issue ... Unexplained expenditure in the purchase of gold bullion u/s 69C - HELD THAT:- AO grossly erred in making addition for unexplained expenditure u/s 69C based on incorrect item movement analysis sheet which at the later stage during the remand proceedings were correctly filed by the assessee and duly accepted by the assessing officer. we find no infirmity in the finding of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition made by the Ld. AO u/s 69C of the Act on account of unexplained expenditure. Thus, ground No.1 of the revenue’s appeal stands dismissed. Unexplained loan creditors u/s 68 - HELD THAT:- Assessee to the best of his ability has furnished requisite documentary evidences to prove identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the 13 cash creditors from whom loan stood taken at the close of the year. It is also noteworthy that out of 13 cash creditors 10 have appeared before the AO and explained the transactions and for the remaining three cash creditors even though necessary details were filed but they could not appear but the facts remains that transactions were carried out through banking channel confirmation account with PAN and address were filed and the loans have been repaid in subsequent year/years - AO has not carried out any further investigation nor pointed out any instance from the bank statement or other documents of these 3 cash creditors to raise suspicion about the genuineness of the loan transactions. If the assessee filed ample evidences to discharge the burden carted upon him and the assessing officer fails to bring any material on record to show that explanation filed by the assessee are unsatisfactory, then addition u/s 68 of the Act for unexplained cash creditors is not justified. Personal appearance of 10 cash creditors out of 13 cash creditors and in the remaining 3 cases also the loan taken has been repaid in subsequent years and all the necessary documentary evidences stands filed, we, are of the considered view that the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition for unexplained cash credit u/s 68 - Decided against revenue. Issues Involved1. Deletion of addition of Rs. 2,19,13,800/- made on account of unexplained expenditure in the purchase of gold bullion under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Deletion of addition of Rs. 65,42,060/- made on account of unexplained loan creditors under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Detailed AnalysisIssue 1: Deletion of Addition under Section 69CThe Revenue challenged the deletion of an addition of Rs. 2,19,13,800/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) for unexplained expenditure in the purchase of gold bullion. The AO based this addition on discrepancies found in the 'Item Movement Analysis Report,' which indicated negative stock due to incorrect data provided by the assessee's accountant.During the assessment, the AO did not find any defects in the audited books of accounts, bills, or vouchers. The AO's remand report also did not highlight any discrepancies. The assessee argued that the stock movement analysis was incorrect due to a clerical error and provided corrected details during the appellate proceedings. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] verified these corrected details and found no negative stock. The CIT(A) observed that the AO failed to conduct a thorough investigation and did not reject the books of accounts, which were regularly audited under Section 44AB.The Tribunal noted that the AO should have examined the entire year's purchases rather than focusing on two specific dates. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT vs. Padamchand Ramgopal, which held that insignificant mistakes cannot form the basis for rejecting books of accounts. Consequently, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition, as the AO's addition was based on an incorrect analysis sheet and not supported by comprehensive evidence.Issue 2: Deletion of Addition under Section 68The Revenue also contested the deletion of an addition of Rs. 65,42,060/- made by the AO for unexplained loan creditors. The AO had made this addition because the assessee initially failed to provide confirmation for certain loan creditors. During the appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted additional evidence, including loan confirmations, bank statements, and PAN details, which were forwarded to the AO for verification.The AO examined the loan creditors, and out of 13, ten appeared and confirmed the loans. For the remaining three creditors who did not appear, the assessee provided all necessary documentation, including bank statements and repayment details. The CIT(A) found that the assessee had satisfactorily established the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the loan creditors, as required under Section 68.The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the AO did not conduct further investigations or provide evidence to dispute the assessee's explanations. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT vs. Orissa Corporation P. Ltd., which held that the burden shifts to the Revenue to disprove the assessee's evidence once the initial burden of proof is discharged by the assessee. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition, as the assessee had provided ample evidence to prove the genuineness of the loan transactions.ConclusionThe Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, confirming the CIT(A)'s deletion of the additions under Sections 69C and 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of thorough investigations and proper verification of evidence by the AO before making additions.