ITAT correctly deletes Section 68 addition on sundry creditors to prevent double taxation

The HC upheld ITAT's decision deleting addition u/s 68 regarding sundry creditors. ITAT found the assessee maintained running account with creditor showing substantial transactions. Ledger records revealed Rs. 18,00,000 outstanding as on 31.03.2013, which was written off and offered to tax in subsequent year. ITAT held that making addition would constitute double taxation since amount was already taxed upon write-off. Revenue's case concerned source of creditor funds, but assessee cannot be required to prove source of source. ITAT correctly evaluated facts and reached proper conclusion. Questions answered in assessee's favor.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition of Rs. 18,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, related to sundry creditor Transearch Consultants Pvt. Ltd. (TCPL).
2. Deletion of addition of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, related to unsecured loans from Maple Technology Ltd. (MTL) and Marry Gold Overseas Limited (MOL).

Summary:

Issue 1: Deletion of Addition of Rs. 18,00,000/- u/s 68 related to Sundry Creditor TCPL
The ITAT found that the respondent-assessee had a running account with TCPL with substantial movement in the account. The ledger account showed a credit balance of Rs. 33,00,000/- with four debit entries amounting to Rs. 15,00,000/-, leaving an outstanding sum of Rs. 18,00,000/- as on 31.03.2013, which was written off on 31.03.2014. The ITAT held that adding this amount would result in double addition since it was already written off and offered for tax. The ITAT noted that the ledger account was available to the authorities and the amount in question was received through banking channels. The ITAT concluded that the addition of the closing balance was not justified and deleted the addition of Rs. 18,00,000/-.

Issue 2: Deletion of Addition of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- u/s 68 related to Unsecured Loans from MTL and MOL
The ITAT noted that the respondent-assessee had provided sufficient evidence to prove the identity of the creditors, including ledger accounts, bank statements, ITR, and balance sheets. The creditors confirmed the loans in response to notices u/s 133 (6) and in statements recorded u/s 131. The ITAT emphasized that the assessee cannot be asked to prove the source of the source. The ITAT found that the creditors had sufficient amounts in their bank accounts and no cash deposits were made before giving the loans. The ITAT concluded that the respondent-assessee had proved the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions and deleted the addition of Rs. 5 crores.

Conclusion:
The ITAT correctly evaluated the facts and rightly concluded that the additions made by the AO were unjustified. The questions framed by the Court were answered negatively and in favor of the respondent-assessee. The appeal was dismissed, and pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.

---