ITAT deletes section 68 addition for unsecured loans lacking incriminating material in unabated assessment

ITAT Mumbai-AT allowed appellant's appeal against addition under section 68 read with section 115BBE for unsecured loans treated as unexplained cash credits. The court held that for unabated assessments, no additions can be made without incriminating material found during search. Since the assessment year fell under unabated category as no notice under section 143(2) was issued before search date, and no incriminating material was found regarding the unsecured loans, the addition was deleted. The decision followed precedents from Delhi HC in Kabul Chawla case and SC in Abhisar Buildwell case.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this appeal include:

(a) Whether the addition of Rs. 1 crore under section 68 read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") on account of unsecured loans received from M/s Vinam Finance Pvt. Ltd. was justified, given that the assessee had submitted documentary evidence to prove the identity, creditworthiness of the lender, and genuineness of the transactions.

(b) Whether the repayment of the loans before the date of search substantiates the genuineness of the loans and negates the addition.

(c) Whether the addition was sustainable in the absence of any evidence of cash payment or receipt at the time of loan disbursal or repayment.

(d) Whether the characterization of M/s Vinam Finance Pvt. Ltd. as a paper/shell/non-genuine entity was correct, considering it was an MCA Active company at relevant times.

(e) Whether the addition was valid despite the assessment for AY 2016-17 having attained finality and no pending assessment or reassessment as on the date of search, particularly when no incriminating material was found during the search and seizure operation.

(f) Whether the assessment order should be quashed due to the Assessing Officer relying solely on information from other sources without conducting independent enquiries.

(g) Whether the addition could be sustained based on the retracted statements of certain individuals associated with the lender company.

(h) Whether principles of natural justice were violated by non-supply of materials, statements, investigation reports, and denial of opportunity to cross-examine third parties whose statements were relied upon.

(i) Whether the addition was justified despite no unaccounted assets like cash, jewellery, or stock being found.

(j) Whether the levy of interest under sections 234B and 234C of the Act was appropriate.

(k) Whether the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was justified.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (e) & (a) to (d): Validity of addition of Rs. 1 crore unsecured loan under section 68 read with 115BBE

Legal framework and precedents: Section 68 of the Act deals with unexplained cash credits, where the assessee must prove the identity and genuineness of the creditor and transaction. Section 115BBE imposes a special tax on unexplained cash credits. The principle established in the Supreme Court decision relied upon (PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.) and the Delhi High Court decision (Kabul Chawla) is that in case of "unabated assessments" (where no scrutiny assessment was pending at the time of search), additions under section 153A cannot be made without incriminating material found during the search from the premises of the assessee.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined whether incriminating material was found during the search on the assessee's premises. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) upheld the addition based primarily on statements of directors of M/s Vinam Finance Pvt. Ltd. (Shri Minesh Dhodia, Shri Bhavik Jhakharia, Shri Bhadresh Dhodia), who were alleged to be dummy directors and linked to accommodation entries. The CIT(A) noted that the company was previously managed by a known accommodation entry operator and that large sums (Rs. 43 crores approx.) were routed through this company.

However, the Tribunal noted that the statements relied upon were not recorded from the assessee's premises, nor was any incriminating material or documents found from the assessee's premises relating to the unsecured loan. The Tribunal relied on the legal principle that statements alone, without corroboration by incriminating material found during search, cannot justify additions in an unabated assessment year.

Key evidence and findings: The key evidence was the statements of the directors of the lender company and the fact that no incriminating documents or materials were found during the search at the assessee's premises. The search was conducted on 27.11.2019, but the original return was filed on 15.10.2016 and no scrutiny notice was issued before the search, making the assessment an unabated one.

Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the principle from Kabul Chawla and Abhisar Buildwell that additions in unabated assessments require incriminating material found during search on the assessee's premises. Since no such material was found and the addition was based solely on statements not recorded at the assessee's premises, the addition was held unsustainable.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Department argued that the statements recorded under section 132(4) of the Act constituted incriminating material. The Tribunal rejected this, citing the Delhi High Court's ruling in PCIT v. Harjeev Agarwal that statements alone, without corroborating incriminating evidence found during search, cannot sustain additions.

Conclusions: The Tribunal set aside the addition of Rs. 1 crore unsecured loan under section 68 read with section 115BBE for AY 2016-17, holding that no addition could be made without incriminating material found from the assessee's premises during search. Consequently, related grounds challenging the merit of the addition were rendered academic.

Issue (f), (g), and (h): Reliance on third-party statements, retracted statements, and natural justice

Legal framework and precedents: Principles of natural justice mandate that an assessee should be provided with all relevant materials and an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses whose statements are relied upon. Statements recorded under section 132(4) must be corroborated by evidence to be used against the assessee.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The CIT(A) rejected the assessee's contention that the assessment order should be quashed for non-provision of cross-examination and reliance on retracted statements. The Tribunal, however, found that since the addition itself was unsustainable due to lack of incriminating material, the issue of natural justice violations and reliance on retracted statements became academic and did not require adjudication.

Key evidence and findings: The statements of directors of the lender company were relied upon, but the assessee was not given opportunity to cross-examine. The statements were also retracted by the declarants. However, the Tribunal emphasized the primary requirement of incriminating material found during search, which was missing.

Application of law to facts: Since the addition was set aside on legal grounds, the Tribunal did not delve into the natural justice issues in detail.

Treatment of competing arguments: The assessee argued violation of natural justice and reliance on retracted statements, while the Department maintained the statements were valid evidence. The Tribunal avoided detailed adjudication due to the primary legal defect in addition.

Conclusions: These grounds were not adjudicated in detail as the primary addition was disallowed.

Issue (j) and (k): Levy of interest under sections 234B & 234C and penalty under section 271(1)(c)

Legal framework and precedents: Interest under sections 234B and 234C is levied for defaults in payment of advance tax and deferment of tax liability. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) is imposed for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: Since the addition itself was set aside, the Tribunal held that the levy of interest and penalty based on the disallowed addition also stood rendered academic.

Conclusions: No adjudication on these issues was necessary following disallowance of the addition.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

"In view of above discussion, we set aside the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and hold that no addition in respect of unsecured loan of Rs. 1 crores could be made in the hands of the assessee without aid of any incriminating material found from the premises of the assessee."

"The ratio in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra) has been upheld in the case of Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (supra) therefore, in the unabated assessment year only addition could be made on the basis of incriminating material found from the premises of the assessee."

"A statement of a person, which is not relatable to any incriminating document or material found during search and seizure operation cannot, by itself, trigger a block assessment."

Core principles established include:

• Additions under section 153A for unabated assessments require incriminating material found during search on the assessee's premises; mere statements without corroborating evidence are insufficient.
• The genuineness of unsecured loans cannot be doubted solely on statements of third parties if no incriminating material is found at the assessee's premises.
• Natural justice issues and reliance on retracted statements become academic if the primary addition is unsustainable.

Final determination: The appeal was allowed, the addition of Rs. 1 crore unsecured loan was deleted, and consequential interest and penalty were not adjudicated.

---