Tribunal upholds deletion of unexplained investment addition under section 69 after assessee proves transaction was loan repayment with proper documentation

The ITAT Ahmedabad upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of addition under section 69 for unexplained investment. The assessee successfully demonstrated that the transaction was repayment of a past loan, not a fresh advance, supported by bank records, interest income with TDS, and proper book disclosure. The Revenue failed to provide evidence disproving the repayment nature. The tribunal held that clarification of position backed by verifiable documentation cannot be treated as contradictory, and the CIT(A)'s findings contained no infirmity. The assessee's appeal was allowed.

---

---

The core legal questions considered in this appeal are:

1. Whether the addition of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, treating the amount as unexplained investment advanced as a loan by the assessee during the relevant previous year, was justified.

2. Whether the assessee's explanation that the amount represented a repayment of a loan advanced in an earlier year, supported by documentary evidence, was acceptable.

3. Whether the Assessing Officer's failure to provide a remand report in response to the CIT(A)'s request and reminders vitiates the appellate order deleting the addition.

4. Whether the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence without recording reasons and without providing the Assessing Officer sufficient opportunity to examine such evidence, in violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules.

5. Whether the Revenue's reliance on the absence of addition in the borrower's assessment to negate the addition in the assessee's hands is legally tenable.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis

1. Legitimacy of Addition under Section 69 as Unexplained Investment

The legal framework under section 69 of the Income-tax Act provides that any sum found credited in the books of an assessee for which he offers no satisfactory explanation about the nature and source of such sum, can be treated as unexplained investment and added to the income of the assessee.

The Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings under section 147 and made an addition of Rs. 5 crore under section 69, on the basis that the assessee had advanced a loan of that amount to M/s Shankar Growth Fund Pvt. Ltd. during the year under consideration. The AO found the assessee's claim that the loan was advanced from capital reserves and surplus to be factually incorrect, as the audited balance sheet showed grossly insufficient reserves to justify such an advance. The AO also noted discrepancies in the books of both parties and questioned the genuineness and creditworthiness of the assessee to make such a loan.

The AO's reasoning was that the financial profile of the assessee, with declared income as NIL and insignificant reserves, did not support the capability to advance Rs. 5 crore. The AO further observed that the bank statements and books of accounts did not clearly reflect the transaction as a loan repayment, and the mismatch in opening balances between the assessee and borrower's books raised doubts.

However, the AO did not conclusively disprove the repayment claim but relied on the insufficiency of the financial profile and documentary discrepancies to treat the amount as unexplained investment.

2. Assessee's Explanation and Documentary Evidence

The assessee's contention before the CIT(A) was that the Rs. 5 crore was not a fresh loan advanced during the year but a repayment of a loan originally advanced in the previous year (F.Y. 2016-17). This was supported by ledger accounts, bank statements showing receipt of funds through banking channels, Form 26AS and TDS certificates evidencing interest income and tax deducted at source, and a contra-confirmation from the borrower. The assessee also submitted the borrower's assessment order for A.Y. 2018-19, which accepted the returned income without making any addition corresponding to the Rs. 5 crore, and a certificate of registration with RBI confirming the assessee's status as an NBFC engaged in lending.

The CIT(A) carefully considered this evidence and found the explanation credible. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had disclosed all relevant facts and placed supporting evidence which remained uncontroverted at the appellate stage. The CIT(A) accepted that the amount was a genuine loan repayment and not unexplained investment.

The Tribunal emphasized the settled legal principle that when an assessee explains a transaction as a repayment of a past loan, duly evidenced by bank records, interest income with TDS, and corresponding disclosure in books of account, such explanation cannot be rejected without cogent reasons. The Revenue failed to bring any evidence disproving the repayment nature of the transaction or demonstrating that a fresh loan was advanced during the year.

Regarding the initial inconsistency in the assessee's stand-claiming initially that the loan was advanced from capital reserves and later clarifying it was a repayment-the Tribunal held that a change or clarification in stand, when backed by verifiable documentation, cannot be treated as misleading or contradictory. This did not warrant interference with the appellate order.

3. Failure of Assessing Officer to Submit Remand Report

The CIT(A) had issued a notice for remand report to the AO and sent multiple reminders over several months, but the AO failed to submit the report. The CIT(A) proceeded to decide the appeal based on the material on record and the documentary evidence submitted by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the failure of the AO to respond, despite adequate opportunity, cannot be a ground to vitiate the order of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) had complied with procedural requirements by calling for remand comments and providing full opportunity. The absence of the AO's report left the CIT(A) with no option but to decide on the available evidence.

4. Admission of Additional Evidence and Compliance with Rule 46A

The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence without recording reasons and without providing the AO sufficient opportunity to examine such evidence, violating Rule 46A(2) and (3) of the Income Tax Rules.

The Tribunal examined this objection and found that the CIT(A) had indeed called for remand comments and provided the AO with ample opportunity to respond. The AO's failure to submit the remand report despite repeated reminders meant that the CIT(A) could rely on the evidence before it. The evidence admitted was contemporaneous, relevant, and necessary for adjudication. Therefore, the Tribunal found no violation of Rule 46A, and no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order on this ground.

5. Reliance on Absence of Addition in Borrower's Assessment

The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition merely because no corresponding addition was made in the borrower's assessment. The Tribunal clarified that the absence of addition in the borrower's case is a relevant factor but not conclusive. However, in this case, the borrower's assessment order accepted the transaction as genuine, which supported the assessee's explanation.

Moreover, the Tribunal emphasized that the Revenue failed to produce any evidence contradicting the genuineness of the repayment or disproving the documentary evidence submitted by the assessee. Hence, the Revenue's contention did not merit interference.

Significant Holdings

"It is well-settled that when the assessee explains a transaction as a repayment of a past loan, duly evidenced by bank records, interest income with TDS, and corresponding disclosure in books, such explanation cannot be rejected without cogent reasons."

"The failure of the Assessing Officer to submit remand report despite multiple reminders cannot be a ground to vitiate the order of the CIT(A), particularly when the evidences were contemporaneous, relevant, and necessary for adjudication of the dispute."

"A change or clarification in stand by the assessee, when backed by verifiable documentation, cannot be treated as misleading or contradictory."

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition under section 69 of the Act, concluding that the amount of Rs. 5 crore was a genuine repayment of a loan advanced in an earlier year in the ordinary course of the assessee's business as an NBFC. The addition made by the AO was not justified as the assessee satisfactorily explained the nature and source of the amount with adequate documentary evidence. The procedural objections raised by the Revenue regarding admission of evidence and opportunity to the AO were found to be without merit.

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, affirming the order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- under section 69 of the Income-tax Act.

---