2025 (6) TMI 1411 - AT - Income Tax

Trust fails to prove cash credits of Rs.1.5 crore under Section 68 due to lack of creditor documentation

Sreepathy Trust Versus DCIT, Exemption, Circle, Kochi

The Tribunal dismissed appeals for AY 2013-14 and 2016-17, upholding additions of Rs.1,37,19,323 and Rs.12,31,760 respectively as unexplained cash credits ... Addition u/s 68 - unexplained cash credit - loans or advances as received by assessee - onus to prove - CIT(A) concluded that the three essential limbs for accepting a cash credit u/s 68 namely, identity of the creditor, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction had not been satisfied in most cases - assessee argued advances received were bona fide and from genuine parties HELD THAT:- While the assessee has submitted a list of creditors or donors, it failed to furnish key documentary evidence such as bank statements, income tax returns of the creditors, or confirmation letters. More importantly, discrepancies were found between the initial list of depositors filed earlier and the revised list submitted later. This seriously undermines the credibility of the assessee’s claim. The lower authorities have categorically observed that in the absence of such corroborative evidence, the genuineness of the transactions is questionable. We find that the AO as well as the CIT(A) have given detailed findings, which remain unrebutted by the assessee with credible documentation. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) confirming the addition under Section 68. Decided against assessee. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in these appeals are:Whether the cash credits amounting to Rs.1,37,19,323 (AY 2013-14) and Rs.12,31,760 (AY 2016-17) credited in the books of the assessee-trust can be treated as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.Whether the assessee has discharged the onus under Section 68 by satisfactorily proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the creditors and the transactions.Whether the explanations and documentary evidence submitted by the assessee in support of the advances/loans received are adequate and reliable to rebut the presumption of unexplained cash credit.Whether the lower authorities erred in making additions under Section 68 and in rejecting the assessee's contentions regarding the nature of advances as bona fide and temporary in nature.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue: Treatment of Cash Credits under Section 68 of the Income-tax ActRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents:Section 68 of the Income-tax Act mandates that when any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee and the assessee fails to satisfactorily explain the nature and source of such sum, it may be treated as the income of the assessee and taxed accordingly. The settled legal principles require the assessee to prove three essential limbs to avoid such addition:Identity of the creditorCreditworthiness of the creditorGenuineness of the transactionThese principles have been consistently upheld by courts and tribunals, emphasizing the need for corroborative evidence such as bank statements, PAN details, income tax returns of creditors, and confirmation letters to establish these elements.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning:The Tribunal noted that the assessee, a trust registered under Section 12AA of the Act, had its original assessments completed but was subjected to reassessment under Section 147 based on information about unexplained cash credits. The Assessing Officer (AO) required detailed particulars of the creditors including names, addresses, dates, amounts, modes of receipt/payment, and bank statements.While the assessee submitted lists of persons from whom loans or advances were received, the AO and subsequently the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] found that the submissions lacked corroborative documentary evidence such as bank statements, income tax returns, or confirmation letters. The CIT(A) further observed discrepancies between the initial list of depositors and the revised list submitted later, which undermined the credibility of the assessee's claims.The Tribunal emphasized that mere entries in books of accounts or submission of names without supporting documentation cannot satisfy the burden of proof under Section 68. The Tribunal concurred with the lower authorities that the three essential limbs-identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness-were not established in the present case.Key Evidence and Findings:Submission of lists of creditors without bank statements or financial documents.Discrepancies between earlier and later submissions regarding depositors/creditors.Absence of PAN details, address proofs, or income tax returns of creditors.Failure to reconcile the advances with the books of accounts or earlier disclosures.Application of Law to Facts:The Tribunal applied the statutory requirements of Section 68 to the facts and found that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the creditors and transactions. The lack of corroborative evidence and inconsistencies in submissions justified the treatment of the cash credits as unexplained. The Tribunal upheld the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A).Treatment of Competing Arguments:The assessee contended that the advances were bona fide and from genuine parties, emphasizing the nature of the trust's activities in charitable and educational domains, decentralized management, and volunteer-based operations which may have led to incomplete documentation. It was argued that the lower authorities' rejection of explanations was arbitrary and that documents submitted at the appellate stage were not duly considered.The Departmental Representative (DR) countered that the assessee failed to provide satisfactory proof of identity and creditworthiness and that mere lists without documentary evidence cannot establish genuineness. The DR highlighted the absence of PAN, bank statements, and the failure to reconcile current submissions with earlier records.The Tribunal found the DR's arguments more persuasive, noting that the statutory burden lies on the assessee and cannot be discharged by mere assertions or incomplete documentation. The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's contentions regarding the nature of the trust's activities as a justification for lack of evidence.Issue: Applicability of Findings to Both Assessment YearsThe facts and issues for AY 2016-17 were identical to those for AY 2013-14, involving unexplained cash credits under Section 68. The Tribunal applied the same reasoning and principles mutatis mutandis and dismissed the appeal for AY 2016-17 as well.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Tribunal held:'Under Section 68, when any sum is found credited in the books of the assessee, and the assessee fails to offer a satisfactory explanation regarding the nature and source thereof, such sum may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee.'The Tribunal reaffirmed the established legal principle that the assessee bears the burden to prove three essential elements-identity of the creditor, creditworthiness of the creditor, and genuineness of the transaction-to exclude cash credits from being treated as unexplained under Section 68.It was further held that:'In the absence of corroborative evidence such as bank statements, income tax returns of creditors, or confirmation letters, and in the presence of discrepancies between earlier and later submissions, the genuineness of the transactions is questionable.'The Tribunal concluded that the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) had rightly made and confirmed the addition under Section 68, and that the assessee failed to rebut the presumption of unexplained cash credits with credible documentation.Accordingly, both appeals were dismissed, confirming the additions made under Section 68 for the respective assessment years.