2022 (11) TMI 193 - AT - Income Tax

Assessee's Appeal Allowed for Re-Examination by Tribunal: Unsecured Loan & Investment to be Scrutinized

Smt. Premalatha Ramu Versus The Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward -7 (2), Chennai.

The appeal filed by the assessee was treated as allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal directed a re-examination by the Assessing Officer ... Additions towards unexplained cash credit for unsecured loan - AO has rejected explanation furnished by the assessee by misunderstanding explanation furnished by the assessee and made additions - HELD THAT:- AO had not denied the claim of the assessee towards source for capital introduced out of sale of her own property and jewel loan taken from banks etc. As regard, observation of the AO with regard to the purchase of another house property, on perusal of balance sheet filed by the assessee, we find that on the liability side the assessee shown unsecured loan and on the asset side, she had shown purchase of property. Therefore, the observation of the AO that she had utilized sale consideration of property for purchase of another property and thus, source is not available for explaining unsecured loan is a misunderstanding or misreading of balance sheet. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the issue needs to be re-examined by the AO, on the claim of the assessee that she had introduced capital into her business out of her own source. Hence, we set aside the issue and direct the AO to re-examine the claim of the assessee after giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Unexplained investments towards unsecured loans given to husband - AO has made additions towards unsecured loan given to her husband u/s. 69A of the Act as unexplained investment, on the ground that the assessee has not declared loan given to her husband in her books of accounts and also could not explain source of loan given to her husband - HELD THAT:- We find that the assessee has claimed before the AO that the unsecured loan given to her husband is debited in her drawings account for two assessment years. We further noted that the assessee has claimed huge drawings in financial year relevant to assessment year 2012-13. AO has not verified the claim of the assessee. Therefore, we are of the considered view that this issue also needs to go back to the AO for further verification. Hence, we set aside the issue and direct the Assessing Officer to re-examine the claim of the assessee and decide the issue in accordance with law. Appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Issues Involved:1. Addition of Rs. 50 lakhs representing unsecured loan under section 68 of the Income-tax Act.2. Addition of Rs. 19,32,780 as unexplained investment regarding a transaction with the appellant's husband.Issue 1: Addition of Rs. 50 lakhs representing unsecured loan under section 68 of the Income-tax Act:The appellant, engaged in trading, declared a total income for the assessment year 2012-13. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions towards unexplained cash credit for an unsecured loan of Rs. 50 lakhs and unexplained investments towards unsecured loans given to her husband. The appellant claimed the unsecured loan represented her own capital introduced in the business, sourced from jewel loans and property sale. However, the AO rejected this explanation, stating it was not proven, and made the addition under section 68 of the Act. The appellant contended that the addition for the unsecured loan from earlier financial years was unjustified. The Tribunal found that the AO misunderstood the appellant's explanation and directed a re-examination, noting that the claim of introducing capital from own sources needed further assessment.Issue 2: Addition of Rs. 19,32,780 as unexplained investment regarding a transaction with the appellant's husband:The AO added Rs. 19,32,780 as unexplained investment related to a transaction with the appellant's husband. The appellant argued that since it was a transaction between spouses, no addition should be made, as the loan given to the husband was debited in her drawings account. The Tribunal observed that the AO did not verify the appellant's claim regarding the loan given to her husband and directed a re-examination of the issue. The Tribunal set aside the addition, instructing the AO to further investigate and decide the matter in accordance with the law.In conclusion, the appeal filed by the assessee was treated as allowed for statistical purposes, with the Tribunal directing a re-examination of both issues by the Assessing Officer to ensure a fair and accurate assessment in accordance with the provisions of the Income-tax Act.