2023 (8) TMI 1631 - AT - Income Tax

Unsecured loans addition deleted under section 68 after assessee proves creditor identity capacity and genuineness through proper documentation

M/s. Shri Krishna Devcon Ltd. Versus ACIT Central-1, Indore

ITAT Indore upheld CIT(A)'s deletion of addition u/s 68 regarding unsecured loans, finding assessee discharged onus to prove identity, capacity and ... Addition u/s 68 - unsecured loan taken by the assessee from the companies - Onus to prove - CIT(A) deleted addition - HELD THAT:- In view of the fact and circumstances of the case as well as having considered the documentary evidence produced by the assessee and analyzing the transactions recorded in the documentary evidences we find that the assessee has duly discharged its onus to prove the identity of the loan creditors, the capacity of the loan creditors and the genuineness of the transactions. So far as the identity of the loan creditors is concerned the department has not disputed the same and the capacity of the loan creditor has been duly established by producing audited financial statements, tax audit report, bank account statements, return of income of the lender companies and no defect was pointed out by the AO in the documentary evidence produced by the assesse. The transactions are through banking channel and the assessee produced the bank account statement of the assessee as well as the loan creditor companies to show that there is nothing in the bank account statement as well as ledger account to reflect that assesse’s own money has routed back through these lender companies. Rather the assessee has repaid part of the loans prior to the search and seizure action in this case. Therefore, all these facts and record go to prove that the transactions are genuine and nothing has been brought on record except reference to certain investigation reports to doubt the transactions duly recorded in the books of account as well as in the bank account statement. No error or illegality in the impugned order of the CIT (A) qua this issue of addition made by the AO u/s 68 of the Act on account of unsecured loan. Disallowance of interest paid by the assessee on these loans which was deleted by CIT(A) - We further note that all the transactions of interest payment are duly reflected in the books of account of assessee as well as lender companies and are subjected to TDS. These transactions are also reflected in the bank account of the assessee as well as lender companies, therefore, there is no reason to doubt the payment of the interest by the assessee after deducting TDS through banking channel and duly recorded in the books of account. Once the addition made on account of unsecured loan is deleted then the interest on the said loan added by the AO as consequence to the disallowance of the loan amount would not survive. Accordingly we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the Ld. CIT (A) qua this issue. Addition u/s 69 on account of unexplained investment - HELD THAT:- AO has made addition contrary to the record which was rejected by holding that in the books of M/s A & A Shelters partnership firm unsecured loan is shown as taken from M/s Purvi Finvest Ltd but ultimate source of this loan is the unaccounted income of the assessee solely on the basis of the statement of Shri Naveen Jain. Assessee has otherwise produced all the relevant documentary evidences to show that it is a genuine transaction of loan between M/s A & A Shelters and M/s Purvi Finvest Limited and therefore, in absence of any material or other fact to show that this loan amount is assessee’s unaccounted income transferred to the partnership firm in the garb of unsecured loan from M/s Purvi Finvest Limited the addition made by the AO is not sustainable. AO has even not conducted any inquiry on this issue and simply made addition based on the statement which does not disclosed any fact leading to the conclusion that the transaction as found recorded in the books of M/s A & A Shelters is in fact unaccounted income of the assesse. This ground of revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Addition made on account of on money received for booking of plots - HELD THAT:- CIT (A) has confirmed the addition by ignoring all these explanation and relevant evidences available on record. Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT (A) confirming the addition without even verifying the correct facts on the record produced by the assessee is not sustainable. Once the assessee has produced the relevant documents to manifest that some of the alleged plots have been sold by the assessee through registered sale deeds and duly recorded in the books of account and also declared in the turnover of the assessee then the addition on account of undisclosed income in respect of sale of these plots is highly arbitrary and unjustified. When the assessee has explained that another plot was booked in the name of Ankush S/o R.C. Chourasia against booking amount of Rs. 50,000/- received through Cheque and the details of the booking and Cheque produced before the AO in the ledger account then the addition to the extent of the said plot is also not justified. The remaining plots are claimed to be part of the inventory of the assessee company which could be verified from the books of account however, neither the AO nor Ld. CIT (A) took pain to verify this fact from the books of the assesse. Accordingly addition made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT (A) without considering correct facts as recorded in the books of account as well as other relevant evidence produced by the assessee in the shape of sale deeds and transactions through banking channel is highly arbitrary and hence same is deleted. AO has made addition u/s 68 of the Act on the ground that entries found in the seized documents from Shri Shri Hemandra Singh Nabeda are not recorded in the books of account. Once the addition is made on the basis of these entries not recorded in the books of account being on money received by the assessee against the sale of plot then the provision of section 68 cannot be invoked. This finding of the AO is self-contradictory as in one had it is held that these transactions are not recorded in the books of account and on the other hand Ld. AO has made the addition u/s. 68 of the Act which can be done only when the entries are found in the books of account and the assessee failed to explain the source of the credit recorded in the books of account. Addition u/s 68 on account of cash received against sale of plots not recorded in the books of account - addition based on the seized documents which is register found during the course of search from the office premises of the assessee - HELD THAT:- The seized documents cannot be accepted as admissible evidence in part. Hence to the extent of addition made by the AO towards the cash receipt is duly based on the seized material. Since the said transaction of cash is not found recorded in the books of account therefore, applying the provisions of section 68 of the Act is not justified. Hence we restrict the addition of the said amount of Rs. 2,77,350/- as unaccounted business income of the assessee and not u/s 68 of the Act. The orders of the authorities below are modified accordingly. Validity of assessment order for want of valid approval u/s 153D - HELD THAT:- When the AO has obtained the approval u/s 153D and assessee has not brought before us anything to show contrary ground no.7 of the assesse’s appeal is dismissed. Issues Presented and Considered:1. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in admitting additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules without properly considering the remand report submitted by the Assessing Officer (AO), and whether such admission was in violation of principles of natural justice.2. Whether the acceptance of retraction of a statement made by the assessee after a significant delay was justified, despite the presence of alleged strong evidence of accommodation entries involving companies controlled by a known entry provider.3. Whether additions made by the AO in non-abated assessment years, based on incriminating materials found during search and seizure proceedings, were sustainable.4. Whether the additions made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of alleged bogus unsecured loans were justified.5. Whether the additions made under section 69C on account of interest expenses on such alleged bogus unsecured loans were justified.6. Whether the assessment orders passed under section 153A/143(3) without valid approval under section 153D were valid.7. Whether seized documents from third parties could be used to make additions in the hands of the assessee under section 153A without following the procedure under section 153C.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:Admission of Additional Evidence under Rule 46ARelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules permits the admission of additional evidence during appellate proceedings if sufficient cause is shown for not producing such evidence during assessment proceedings. The AO's remand report is to be considered before admitting such evidence.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The CIT(A) admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee, including affidavits, Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs), termination letters, and arbitration orders, after forwarding the same to the AO for comments. The AO objected to admission but did not comment on the veracity of the evidence. The CIT(A) found sufficient cause as the evidence was obtained post-assessment and admitted it in the interest of justice.Key Evidence and Findings: The additional evidence comprised independent documents such as MOUs and affidavits that were not fabricated as afterthoughts. The affidavit of the alleged entry provider was filed to counter AO's claim of bogus companies.Application of Law to Facts: Since the AO did not challenge the authenticity of the additional evidence and the assessee explained the delay satisfactorily, admission was justified.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The revenue argued that the remand report was disregarded; however, the AO's report only raised objections to admission without disputing the evidence's truthfulness.Conclusion: The admission of additional evidence was proper and in accordance with Rule 46A and principles of natural justice.Reliance on Statement Recorded under Section 132(4) and RetractionRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Statements recorded under section 132(4) during search proceedings are evidentiary but cannot be the sole basis for additions unless corroborated by incriminating material found during search. The Supreme Court and various High Courts have held that retracted statements recorded under duress or stress cannot sustain additions.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The AO relied heavily on a statement of a non-executive director recorded under section 132(4), which was subsequently retracted. The CIT(A) and Tribunal held that the statement alone, without incriminating material, cannot justify additions, especially when the retraction explained the circumstances of coercion and lack of authorization.Key Evidence and Findings: No incriminating documents were seized during the search; the statement did not reveal any new undisclosed income beyond books of account. The retraction was duly explained and accepted.Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the principle that statements under section 132(4) must have nexus with incriminating material to be used for additions. The absence of such material and the valid retraction negated the AO's reliance on the statement.Treatment of Competing Arguments: Revenue contended that the statement was incriminating; however, the Tribunal relied on judicial precedents emphasizing the need for nexus with seized material and the validity of retraction.Conclusion: Additions based solely on the statement recorded under section 132(4) and subsequent retraction were unsustainable.Additions in Non-Abated Assessment Years without Incriminating MaterialRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 153A mandates block assessments post-search, but additions in completed (non-abated) assessments require incriminating material found during search. The Supreme Court and various High Courts, including the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Kabul Chawla, have emphasized that no additions can be made in non-abated years without incriminating material.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the assessments for AYs 2012-13 and 2014-15 were completed before the search and no incriminating documents were found during search relating to these years. The AO's reliance on third-party survey reports and statements unrelated to the search was rejected.Key Evidence and Findings: The AO did not produce any incriminating material seized during search for these years. The ledger accounts and returns were filed before search, and no new evidence was discovered.Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied settled legal principles that additions in non-abated years require incriminating material found during search, which was absent here.Treatment of Competing Arguments: Revenue argued that statements and third-party reports constituted incriminating material; Tribunal rejected this for lack of nexus and procedural non-compliance.Conclusion: Additions in non-abated assessment years without incriminating material were not sustainable.Additions under Section 68 on Account of Alleged Bogus Unsecured LoansRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 68 requires the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of creditors and transactions involving unexplained cash credits or loans. Judicial precedents mandate AO to conduct independent inquiry and not rely on surmises or unverified reports.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal found that the assessee produced extensive documentary evidence including audited financial statements, bank statements, tax returns, ledger accounts, confirmations from lender companies, and certificates of registration as NBFCs. The AO failed to conduct independent inquiries or disprove the evidence. The companies were found to be genuine and financially capable of granting loans.Key Evidence and Findings: Evidence included ledger accounts reflecting loan transactions and repayments, bank statements showing transactions through proper banking channels, TDS deductions on interest payments, and assessments of lender companies. The assessee also produced affidavits from directors of the lender companies.Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the principle that once the assessee discharges the onus under section 68 by proving identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness, the AO must bring cogent evidence to rebut. The AO's reliance on unsubstantiated investigation reports and third-party statements was insufficient.Treatment of Competing Arguments: Revenue relied on reports alleging involvement of the lender companies in accommodation entries; Tribunal held that such reports without specific evidence and independent inquiry cannot override documentary proof.Conclusion: Additions on account of unsecured loans were rightly deleted as the assessee discharged its onus and AO failed to disprove genuineness.Additions under Section 69C on Account of Interest ExpensesRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Disallowance of interest under section 69C follows from disallowance of principal unsecured loans under section 68. If the principal addition is deleted, consequential disallowance of interest also fails.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that interest payments were recorded in books of account, subjected to TDS, and made through banking channels. Since the principal additions were deleted, interest disallowances were also deleted.Key Evidence and Findings: Bank statements, ledger accounts, and TDS certificates corroborated the payment of interest.Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the principle of consequential relief to delete interest disallowances.Treatment of Competing Arguments: Revenue's grounds were dismissed as they were consequential to principal additions.Conclusion: Interest disallowances were rightly deleted.Validity of Assessment Orders and Compliance with Section 153DRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 153D mandates prior approval from the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax before passing assessment orders under section 153A in search cases.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The AO obtained requisite approval under section 153D, and the assessee did not dispute the validity of such approval.Key Evidence and Findings: Approval letter dated 29.12.2018 was on record.Application of Law to Facts: Compliance with mandatory approval requirements was established.Treatment of Competing Arguments: No argument against compliance was advanced by the assessee.Conclusion: Assessment orders were validly passed with requisite approval.Use of Seized Documents from Third Parties in Assessment under Section 153ARelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Seized documents from third parties cannot be used to make additions in the hands of the assessee under section 153A unless the procedure under section 153C is followed, which includes handing over documents to the AO having jurisdiction and giving opportunity of cross-examination.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that seized documents from third parties (such as diaries) were used by AO to make additions in the assessee's hands without following section 153C procedure. The Tribunal held such additions were not sustainable.Key Evidence and Findings: Diary seized from a relative of directors contained entries allegedly relating to unaccounted receipts.Application of Law to Facts: The procedure under section 153C was not followed; hence, reliance on such third-party documents was improper.Treatment of Competing Arguments: Revenue argued seized material was incriminating; Tribunal emphasized procedural safeguards and rejected additions.Conclusion: Additions based on third-party seized documents without following section 153C were unsustainable.Significant Holdings:'The statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act may also be used for making the assessment, but only to the extent it is relatable to the incriminating evidence/material unearthed or found during search. A statement of a person, which is not relatable to any incriminating document or material found during search and seizure operation cannot, by itself, trigger a block assessment.''In absence of any incriminating material, the completed assessment can be reiterated and the abated assessment or reassessment can be made. Completed assessments can be interfered with by the AO while making the assessment under Section 153A only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment.''Once the assessee produces evidence to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the creditor and the transaction, the AO must conduct independent inquiry and cannot make addition on mere surmises or unverified reports.''Additional evidence filed during appellate proceedings under Rule 46A can be admitted if sufficient cause is shown for not producing the same during assessment proceedings and the AO's remand report does not dispute the veracity of such evidence.''Seized documents from third parties cannot be used against the assessee under section 153A without following the procedure under section 153C, including handing over documents to the AO having jurisdiction and giving opportunity of cross-examination.'Final determinations:- The admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A was proper and justified.- Additions based solely on statements recorded under section 132(4) without incriminating material and in presence of retraction were unsustainable.- Additions in non-abated assessment years without incriminating material found during search were not sustainable.- Additions under section 68 on account of unsecured loans were deleted as the assessee discharged its onus and AO failed to disprove genuineness.- Consequential disallowance of interest under section 69C was deleted.- Assessment orders were validly passed with requisite approval under section 153D.- Additions based on seized documents from third parties without following section 153C procedure were not sustainable.- Additions on account of alleged unaccounted income from sale of plots based on seized documents were not sustainable where the assessee produced sale deeds and accounted for transactions.