2022 (7) TMI 586 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal upholds deletion of tax additions due to lack of evidence

ITO-6 (2) (1), Mumbai Versus M/s. Chanvim Enginering (I) Pvt. Ltd.

ITO-6 (2) (1), Mumbai Versus M/s. Chanvim Enginering (I) Pvt. Ltd. - TMI Issues:- Appeal against deletion of addition made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act for accommodation entry of loan- Appeal against deletion of addition made under section 69C of the Income Tax Act for commissionAnalysis:Issue 1: Appeal against deletion of addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act for accommodation entry of loanThe Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs.2,01,00,000 under section 68 of the Act, treating it as unexplained credit. The AO received information that the assessee availed accommodation entry from a group known for providing such entries. The AO, despite receiving details from the assessee and verifying the information, was not satisfied and made the addition. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the addition. The CIT(A) noted that the transactions were through banking channels, with TDS deducted and paid, and the loans were returned with interest through banking channels. The CIT(A) found that the AO did not provide specific findings on the alleged involvement of the assessee in accommodation transactions, relying only on general information. The CIT(A) observed that the AO failed to investigate and prove the assessee's involvement in accommodation entries. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the assessee had proven the loan transactions, and the addition based on a retracted statement without incriminating oral testimony was unjustified.Issue 2: Appeal against deletion of addition under section 69C of the Income Tax Act for commissionThe AO estimated a commission of Rs.4,02,000 paid to entry providers as unsecured expenditure under section 69C of the Act. The CIT(A) deleted this addition after considering the documents submitted by the assessee, including the trail of transactions, ledger accounts, income tax returns, and confirmations from lenders. The CIT(A) found that the AO did not provide any specific evidence to support the addition and merely relied on general statements. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the assessee had discharged the onus to prove the transactions, and the addition based on unsubstantiated statements was unwarranted.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions made by the AO under sections 68 and 69C of the Income Tax Act.