2024 (12) TMI 1384 - AT - Income Tax

Loan repayment from existing borrower cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit under sections 68 and 69C

Surya Jyoti Software Pvt. Ltd. Versus ITO, Ward-24, New Delhi.

ITAT Delhi allowed the assessee's appeal against additions under sections 68 and 69C for unexplained cash credit and expenditure. The tribunal held that ... Revision u/s 263 - Additions u/s 68 - unexplained cash credit - unexplained expenditure u/s 69C - HELD THAT:- Receipt Alleged to be unexplained cash credit is offshoot of earlier grant of loan to M/s. Shalini Holdings Ltd. The receipt of money by way of repayment of loan earlier granted cannot be taken in the same pedestal as that of receipt of loan per se. Requirement of proving creditworthiness in such a situation of repayment has been read down in SBD Estates P. Ltd. [2018 (3) TMI 1592 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and Vijay Dewellers Pvt. Ltd [2019 (3) TMI 291 - ITAT MUMBAI] It was observed that in the case of repayment of loan earlier given by the assessee, there is no requirement on the part of the assessee to prove the source of funds of the borrower making repayment towards its existing obligation. Similar view has been expressed in Veedhata Tower P. Ltd. & SBD Estate [2018 (4) TMI 1004 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] Thus on this score itself on standalone basis, the addition made is unsustainable in law. We further advert to the other line of plea such as placing reliance on statement of searched person without providing cross-examination as well as the seized documents involving the assessee. The assessee on its part has duly attended before the AO in pursuance of notice issued u/s 131 of the Act and provided the requisite explanations. It is also noticed that the assessment of borrower showing repayment of loan has been duly made wherein no adverse observations have been made by the AO towards providing any accommodation entry to any person. Thus, when seen holistically, the receipt of money can neither be regarded as accommodation entry by way of loan nor the assessee has been provided with the cross-examination of the searched person giving rise to the consequential action against the assessee. The order of the CIT(A) is thus set aside and the AO is directed to delete the additions so made under section 68 & 69C of the Act. Appeal of the assessee is allowed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in this judgment are as follows:Whether the initiation of proceedings under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequent order under sections 263/147/143(3) are valid in law.Whether the addition of INR 1,00,00,000/- under section 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit is justified.Whether the addition of INR 1,80,000/- under section 69C as alleged commission paid for obtaining an accommodation entry is justified.Whether the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) was appropriate.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Validity of Proceedings under Section 263Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 263 of the Income Tax Act allows the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner to revise any order passed by the Assessing Officer if it is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined whether the proceedings under section 263 were initiated based on a valid reassessment order. It found that the reassessment order, which was the basis for section 263 proceedings, was itself flawed.Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal noted that the reassessment notice was issued without proper application of mind, and multiple notices were issued for the same assessment year, rendering the reassessment order null and void.Application of law to facts: The Tribunal concluded that since the reassessment order was invalid, the subsequent section 263 proceedings were also vitiated.Treatment of competing arguments: The Tribunal considered the Revenue's reliance on the reassessment order but found it unsustainable due to procedural lapses.Conclusions: The proceedings under section 263 were deemed invalid, as they were based on a nonest reassessment order.Issue 2: Addition under Section 68 for Unexplained Cash CreditRelevant legal framework and precedents: Section 68 requires the assessee to explain the nature and source of any cash credit in their books, failing which it may be taxed as income.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal observed that the amount in question was a repayment of a loan previously advanced by the assessee to M/s. Shalini Holdings Ltd., not a fresh loan.Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal reviewed the transaction details and found that the repayment was wrongly equated with unexplained cash credit.Application of law to facts: Based on precedents, the Tribunal held that there was no obligation for the assessee to prove the source of funds for a repayment of a loan.Treatment of competing arguments: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's argument that the repayment should be treated as an accommodation entry, citing lack of evidence and procedural fairness.Conclusions: The addition under section 68 was unsustainable and was directed to be deleted.Issue 3: Addition under Section 69C for Unexplained ExpenditureRelevant legal framework and precedents: Section 69C allows for the addition of unexplained expenditure to the income of the assessee.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal found no basis for the alleged commission payment related to obtaining an accommodation entry.Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal noted the absence of evidence supporting the claim of commission payment.Application of law to facts: The Tribunal concluded that the addition was based on incorrect assumptions and lacked evidentiary support.Treatment of competing arguments: The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's position due to the lack of confrontation with adverse material and procedural fairness.Conclusions: The addition under section 69C was unjustified and was directed to be deleted.Issue 4: Initiation of Penalty Proceedings under Section 271(1)(c)Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 271(1)(c) pertains to the imposition of penalties for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the penalty proceedings were initiated without any substantive material on record.Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal found no basis for the penalty proceedings given the lack of evidence for the additions themselves.Application of law to facts: The Tribunal held that the initiation of penalty proceedings was unwarranted.Treatment of competing arguments: The Tribunal did not find any compelling argument from the Revenue to justify the penalty proceedings.Conclusions: The initiation of penalty proceedings was deemed inappropriate.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: 'The receipt of money by way of repayment of loan earlier granted cannot be taken in the same pedestal as that of receipt of loan per se.'Core principles established: Repayment of a loan does not require the assessee to prove the source of funds of the borrower. Procedural fairness, including the right to cross-examination, is crucial in assessment proceedings.Final determinations on each issue: The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the additions under sections 68 and 69C and invalidating the section 263 proceedings.