2025 (1) TMI 25 - AT - Income Tax

Director's statement claiming off-book payments to creditors found rebuttable, Rs. 4 crores addition under section 69C deleted

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2 (1), Chennai. Versus Anbu Infratech Pvt. Ltd.

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2 (1), Chennai. Versus Anbu Infratech Pvt. Ltd. - TMI 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal issue presented in this judgment is whether the addition of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) towards unexplained expenditure under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of trade payables allegedly settled outside the books of accounts, was justified. Specifically, the court examined:Whether the seized materials and the statement of Shri A.N.Boopathy corroborated the AO's claim of unexplained expenditure.Whether the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition made by the AO based on the evidence provided by the assessee.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISRelevant legal framework and precedents:Section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, deals with unexplained expenditure. If an assessee incurs any expenditure and fails to explain the source, the amount may be deemed as income of the assessee for that financial year.Court's interpretation and reasoning:The court scrutinized the seized materials and the statement of Shri A.N.Boopathy, Director of the assessee company. The CIT(A) found that the seized materials did not substantiate the AO's claim that the trade payables were settled outside the books of accounts. The CIT(A) observed discrepancies in the AO's interpretation of the seized documents and the statement of Shri A.N.Boopathy.Key evidence and findings:The seized loose sheets allegedly indicating settlement of trade payables outside the books were not corroborated by any concrete evidence.The statement of Shri A.N.Boopathy was found to be inconsistent and factually incorrect when cross-referenced with the books of accounts and financial statements.The CIT(A) noted that the amounts payable to the Paranthaman concerns were reflected under 'Sundry Debtors' in the balance sheet, not under 'Sundry Creditors' as claimed by the AO.Application of law to facts:The CIT(A) applied Section 69C and determined that the AO's addition was not legally sustainable. The CIT(A) concluded that the evidence provided by the assessee, including ledger accounts and financial statements, demonstrated that the payments were duly recorded in the books of account, contradicting the AO's claim of settlement outside the books.Treatment of competing arguments:The Revenue argued that the seized materials and the statement of Shri A.N.Boopathy supported the addition. However, the CIT(A) and subsequently the Tribunal found that the evidence did not support the AO's conclusion. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the statement of Shri A.N.Boopathy was rebuttable and lacked corroboration from the seized materials.Conclusions:The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- under Section 69C, finding that the evidence did not support the AO's claim of unexplained expenditure.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning:'In view of the aforesaid discussion, the undersigned is of the considered view that the addition made by the AO as unexplained expenditure as per the provisions of section 69C of the Act is not legally sustainable and lacks merit.'Core principles established:The burden of proof lies on the Revenue to substantiate claims of unexplained expenditure with concrete evidence.Statements made under oath must be corroborated by documentary evidence to be deemed reliable.The reconciliation of seized materials with the books of accounts is crucial in determining the legitimacy of financial transactions.Final determinations on each issue:The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, confirming the CIT(A)'s order to delete the addition of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- made under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to lack of evidence supporting the AO's claim.