2023 (5) TMI 318 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal cancels Rs. 46,97,859 tax addition under Section 68. Assessee's explanations accepted, AO's observations contradictory. Appeal delay condoned.

Girish Kumar And Sons Prop Shiv Shakti And Co C/o Girish Garg Versus The ITO, Ward-1, Sangrrur

Girish Kumar And Sons Prop Shiv Shakti And Co C/o Girish Garg Versus The ITO, Ward-1, Sangrrur - [2023] 105 ITR (Trib) 424 (ITAT [Chand]) Issues Involved:1. Confirmation of cash credit of Rs. 46,97,859/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.2. Condonation of a two-day delay in filing the appeal.Summary:Issue 1: Confirmation of Cash Credit under Section 68The Assessee challenged the confirmation of cash credit amounting to Rs. 46,97,859/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act by the CIT(A), Patiala. The Assessee argued that all particulars were disclosed and the cash deposits were from genuine trade advances. The AO found large cash deposits in the Assessee's bank accounts and questioned the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditors. The Assessee could only establish the identity of a few creditors and failed to produce adequate supporting documents such as sale bills and receipts. The AO concluded that the transactions were fabricated to manage cash deposits and added the amount as unexplained cash credits. The CIT(A) upheld this decision, observing that the Assessee introduced unaccounted cash in the guise of trade advances, which did not align with regular trade practices.The Assessee maintained that the deposits were from genuine business transactions and provided ledger accounts and confirmations from some creditors. The AO did not verify these transactions from the parties and dismissed the Assessee's explanations. The Tribunal found that the Assessee's books were audited and no defects were pointed out by the auditors. The AO's own contradictory observations and failure to establish any alternative source of cash led the Tribunal to conclude that the addition was based on conjectures and surmises. Therefore, the Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s order and cancelled the addition of Rs. 46,97,859/-.Issue 2: Condonation of DelayThe Assessee filed an application for condonation of a two-day delay in filing the appeal, attributing it to postal delays. The Tribunal accepted the explanation, finding sufficient cause for the delay, and condoned it.Conclusion:The appeal was allowed, and the addition of Rs. 46,97,859/- under Section 68 was cancelled. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned.