2021 (4) TMI 195 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal affirms CIT(A)'s decisions, emphasizing evidence & consistency in fund explanations.

The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decisions to delete additions made by the Assessing Officer in all three issues. The Tribunal found that the assessee ... Unexplained income - Addition on account of the amount credited in the capital account of partner of the firm - Credit worthiness of the person making payment - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- The assessee explained the source of the partner for depositing the amount in the capital account. The said amount was received by the partner from her son who is NRI, the transaction was through banking channel out of the NRE saving bank account of her son, therefore the addition made by the A.O. was not justified - the amount was received by the assessee firm from the partner who explained the source for the same and if at all any addition was called for that was required to be made in the hands of the partner and not in the hands of assessee firm. On an identical issue in the case of ITO Vs. Nahar Singh Sadhu Singh [2001 (7) TMI 62 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] held that 'the partner had the requisite amount to invest towards the capital account of the firm. Since no evidence had been pointed out against that finding the amount could not be assessed as income from undisclosed sources of the firm.' also see METACHEM INDUSTRIES [1999 (9) TMI 21 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] - Thus addition was rightly deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). Addition on account of amount received from Shri Ankush Gupta - explanation of source - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the assessee received a sum from Shri Ankush Gupta through banking channel and the source of source was explained by the assessee by furnishing the documentary evidences to prove the credit worthiness of Shri Punit Gupta and Shri Akash Bansal from whom Shri Ankush Gupta received the amount. The said documents revealed that the amount of ₹ 32,00,000/- was received by Shri Ankush Gupta from his brother Shri Puneet Gupta who is the NRI and settled in UK. The said amount was transferred from the NRE account. The Assessee also explained the source of another amount of ₹ 9,50,000/- received by Shri Ankush Gupta from his cousin Shri Akash Bansal by furnishing the copy of bank account of Shri Akash Bansal, therefore the addition made by the A.O. was not justified and the Ld. CIT(A) rightly deleted the same particularly when the assessee proved the identity and creditworthiness of depositor as well as genuineness of transaction. Addition on account of the transaction with M/s. Shree Radha Commodity Services - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- Respectfully following the aforesaid referred to order in assessee's own case [2019 (10) TMI 1404 - ITAT CHANDIGARH], we do not see any merit in this ground of the Departmental appeal particularly when the cash deposited in the bank account of M/s. Radha Commodity Services was accepted by the Department as genuine while framing the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dt. 23/03/2016, for the same A.Y. 2013-14; in the case of Shri Kushal Gupta proprietor of M/s. Radha Commodity Services from whom the assessee received the loan through banking channel. We therefore do no see any valid ground to interfere with the findings given by the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. Appeal of revenue dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Deletion of addition of Rs. 20,50,000/- credited in the capital account of Smt. Swaran Kanta.2. Deletion of addition of Rs. 40,50,000/- received from Shri Ankush Gupta.3. Deletion of addition of Rs. 3,88,82,000/- related to transactions with M/s. Shree Radha Commodity Services.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Deletion of addition of Rs. 20,50,000/- credited in the capital account of Smt. Swaran Kanta:The Department's grievance was against the deletion of an addition made by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) on account of Rs. 20,50,000/- credited in the capital account of Smt. Swaran Kanta. The A.O. had treated this amount as unexplained income due to insufficient evidence provided by the assessee. The assessee argued that the amount was received from her son, Puneet Gupta, who is an NRI living in the UK, and provided documentary evidence including bank statements. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting that the source of the funds was sufficiently explained and that the amount should have been assessed in the hands of Smt. Swaran Kanta, not the firm. The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the source of the funds was adequately documented and the addition in the firm's hands was unjustified.2. Deletion of addition of Rs. 40,50,000/- received from Shri Ankush Gupta:The A.O. had added Rs. 40,50,000/- to the assessee's income, questioning the source of the funds received from Shri Ankush Gupta. The assessee provided evidence that the funds were received from Ankush Gupta's brother, Puneet Gupta (an NRI), and cousin, Akash Bansal, along with relevant bank statements. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition, concluding that the source of the funds was adequately explained and documented. The Tribunal agreed with the Ld. CIT(A), noting that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to prove the creditworthiness of the depositors and the genuineness of the transactions.3. Deletion of addition of Rs. 3,88,82,000/- related to transactions with M/s. Shree Radha Commodity Services:The A.O. had added Rs. 3,88,82,000/- to the assessee's income, suspecting the genuineness of transactions with M/s. Shree Radha Commodity Services. The assessee argued that the transactions were genuine and provided evidence, including the fact that similar transactions for earlier years were accepted by the Department. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition, relying on the consistency of the assessee's explanations and the acceptance of similar transactions in previous assessments. The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision, referencing a previous order in the assessee's own case for A.Y. 2008-09, where similar additions were found to be genuine and deleted.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeal, affirming the Ld. CIT(A)'s deletions of the additions for all three issues, based on the adequacy of the evidence provided by the assessee and the consistency of the explanations with previous assessments. The Tribunal emphasized the principles of natural justice and the necessity of proper documentation to substantiate the sources of funds.