2024 (3) TMI 710 - AT - Income Tax

Assessee wins appeal as additions under Section 68 for penny stock gains and loan transactions deleted due to insufficient evidence

Udayan Grover Versus National Faceless Appeal Centre Delhi {ACIT – 26 (3), BKC, Mumbai}

Udayan Grover Versus National Faceless Appeal Centre Delhi {ACIT – 26 (3), BKC, Mumbai} - TMI Issues Involved:1. Treatment of sale consideration from shares as bogus accommodation entry.2. Addition of unsecured loan as unexplained cash credit.3. Disallowance of interest expenditure under section 57.Summary:Issue 1: Treatment of Sale Consideration from Shares as Bogus Accommodation EntryThe assessee's sale consideration of Rs. 4,59,10,500 from shares of Greencrest Financial Services Ltd. was treated as a bogus accommodation entry by the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO alleged that the Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) was non-genuine and added it as unexplained credits under section 68 read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act. The AO's conclusion was based on various parameters such as offline purchase of non-listed shares, unrealistic purchase price, and findings from the SEBI report. The AO issued a show cause notice to the assessee, who failed to substantiate the genuineness of the transactions. The AO relied on judicial precedents to support the addition. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, applying the theory of human probabilities and preponderance of probabilities, concluding that the transactions were sham and aimed at evading taxes.Issue 2: Addition of Unsecured Loan as Unexplained Cash CreditThe AO added Rs. 1,25,00,000 as unexplained cash credit under section 68, considering loans from entities linked to Jagdish Purohit Group as non-genuine. The AO based this on the investigation report and statements from Jagdish Purohit, who admitted to providing accommodation entries through shell companies. The assessee provided confirmations, bank statements, and other documents to prove the genuineness of the loans. However, the AO and CIT(A) held that the assessee failed to prove the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions, relying on the theory of human probabilities and judicial precedents.Issue 3: Disallowance of Interest Expenditure under Section 57The AO disallowed Rs. 62,81,903 of interest expenditure claimed by the assessee, stating that the loans themselves were non-genuine. The AO argued that since the loans were treated as bogus, the interest on such loans could not be allowed as a deduction under section 57 or section 37(1) of the Act. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, noting that the assessee failed to prove the nexus between the interest income and expenses and the genuineness of the loans.Tribunal's Decision:The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, holding that:1. The AO and CIT(A) failed to bring on record any material linking the assessee to dubious transactions or entry operators. The Tribunal found no discrepancies in the documents submitted by the assessee and relied on judicial precedents to conclude that the LTCG was genuine.2. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the unsecured loans. The repayment of loans along with interest further supported the genuineness of the transactions.3. Since the addition of unsecured loans was deleted, the disallowance of interest expenditure was also consequentially deleted.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the appeal, deleting the additions made under sections 68 and 57, and upheld the genuineness of the LTCG and unsecured loans.