2024 (11) TMI 1192 - AT - Income Tax

Share transactions deemed accommodation entries, land cost reduced by Rs.35 crores but unexplained credit additions deleted

Ardor Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Versus The DCIT, Circle-1 (1) (2), Ahmedabad And The ITO, Ward 1 (1) (3), Ahmedabad And Ardor Overseas Pvt. Ltd. And Nikshal Properties Pvt. Ltd. And The ITO, Ward – 3 (1) (1), Ahmedabad

Ardor Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Versus The DCIT, Circle-1 (1) (2), Ahmedabad And The ITO, Ward 1 (1) (3), Ahmedabad And Ardor Overseas Pvt. Ltd. And Nikshal ... Issues Involved:1. Genuineness of the land sale transaction between the two assessees.2. Treatment of capital gains and commodity losses in the case of M/s. Nikshal Properties Pvt. Ltd.3. Reduction of the cost of land in the case of M/s. Ardor Overseas Pvt. Ltd.4. Addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act for unexplained credits.5. Disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act.6. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Genuineness of the Land Sale Transaction:The core issue revolves around the genuineness of a land sale transaction between M/s. Nikshal Properties Pvt. Ltd. (NPPL) and M/s. Ardor Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (AOPL). NPPL claimed the transaction was a mere accommodation entry, while AOPL asserted it was genuine. The Revenue authorities had contradictory findings: NPPL's transaction was accepted as genuine, leading to capital gains tax, whereas AOPL's transaction was deemed an accommodation entry. The Tribunal found that the transaction was indeed an accommodation entry. The directors of NPPL admitted on oath that the transaction was not genuine, and the entire modus operandi of inflating the land cost was revealed. The Tribunal upheld the finding that the transaction was a mere accommodation entry for AOPL.2. Treatment of Capital Gains and Commodity Losses (NPPL):NPPL had claimed capital gains from the land sale, which was set off against a commodity transaction loss. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the commodity loss as bogus but taxed the capital gains. The Tribunal found that since the land sale was an accommodation entry, only the commission income from the transaction should be taxed. The AO was directed to tax the commission income at 2% of the financial transactions, rejecting the capital gains tax.3. Reduction of Cost of Land (AOPL):The AO of AOPL reduced the cost of land from Rs. 44 crores to Rs. 8 crores, based on the accommodation entry findings. The Tribunal upheld this reduction, confirming that the land's true purchase value was Rs. 8 crores, and the inflated cost was a result of the accommodation entry.4. Addition under Section 68 (Unexplained Credits):The AO added Rs. 8 crores as unexplained credits under Section 68, treating loans from Matrix International as unexplained. The Tribunal found that the funds were routed through Matrix International, a conduit for AOPL's director, and the source of the funds was genuine. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition under Section 68.5. Disallowance of Interest under Section 36(1)(iii):Interest paid on loans from Matrix International was disallowed by the AO. Since the loans were found to be genuine, the Tribunal deleted the disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii).6. Disallowance under Section 14A:The AO disallowed expenses under Section 14A, despite no exempt income being earned. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of this disallowance, aligning with the settled law that no disallowance is warranted if no exempt income is earned.Conclusion:The Tribunal's order resulted in a partial allowance of AOPL's appeal, a full allowance of NPPL's appeal, and a dismissal of the Revenue's appeal against AOPL. The Tribunal's findings emphasized the importance of substantiating transactions with genuine evidence and the necessity of aligning tax treatments with the true nature of transactions.