2021 (8) TMI 897 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal invalidates tax additions, cites lack of evidence. Assessee wins appeal.

Mr. Jagdishkumar Madanlal Gupta, M/s. J. Kumar Developers Ltd., M/s. J. Kumar Software Systems (I) Pvt. Ltd., M/s. J. Kumar Minerals & Mines (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mr. Kamal Jagdish Gupta, Mr. Kusum Jagdishkumar Gupta Versus DCIT, Central Circle-5 (1), Mumbai

Mr. Jagdishkumar Madanlal Gupta, M/s. J. Kumar Developers Ltd., M/s. J. Kumar Software Systems (I) Pvt. Ltd., M/s. J. Kumar Minerals & Mines (India) Pvt. ... Issues Involved:1. Legality of additions made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the absence of incriminating evidence during the search.2. Validity of the assessment under section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for unabated assessment years.3. Merits of the addition of Rs. 2,12,87,885 as unexplained cash credit.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of Additions under Section 68 in Absence of Incriminating Evidence:The assessee challenged the addition of Rs. 2,12,87,885 under section 68, arguing that the assessment had not abated on the date of the search and that no incriminating material was found during the search. The Tribunal noted that the assessment for the relevant year had been completed under section 143(3) before the search, and no incriminating documents were found during the search. The Tribunal cited several judgments, including CIT v. Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd. and CIT v. Gurinder Singh Bawa, to support the view that additions in unabated assessments can only be made based on incriminating material found during the search. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the AO had no jurisdiction to make the addition in the absence of such material.2. Validity of Assessment under Section 153A for Unabated Assessment Years:The Tribunal examined whether the AO had the jurisdiction to make additions under section 153A for unabated assessment years without any incriminating evidence. The Tribunal referenced the judgments in All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. v. DCIT and CIT v. Deepak Kumar Agarwal, which established that for unabated assessments, additions can only be based on incriminating material found during the search. The Tribunal concluded that since no such material was found, the assessment under section 153A was invalid.3. Merits of the Addition of Rs. 2,12,87,885 as Unexplained Cash Credit:On the merits, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction with Anchita Properties Pvt. Ltd. (APPL). The AO had accepted part of the loan as genuine, and the Tribunal held that the remaining part could not be considered unexplained cash credit. The Tribunal cited the decision in PCIT v. Ami Industries (India) (P.) Ltd., which emphasized that once the assessee has provided sufficient evidence, the burden shifts to the revenue to disprove it. The Tribunal noted that APPL had responded to notices and provided necessary documents, and no adverse findings were made by the AO. Therefore, the addition was deleted.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the appeals, holding that the additions made under section 68 were without jurisdiction due to the absence of incriminating material found during the search. Additionally, on merits, the assessee had successfully demonstrated the genuineness and creditworthiness of the loan transactions, warranting the deletion of the addition. The findings were applied mutatis mutandis to all related appeals, resulting in the allowance of all appeals filed by the assessee.