2025 (7) TMI 1220 - AT - Income Tax

Section 68 addition upheld for Rs. 75 lakh unexplained cash deposits due to unproven lender creditworthiness and transaction genuineness

M/s Nalagarh Chemicals Private Ltd. Versus ITO-Ward 1 (5), Chandigarh

M/s Nalagarh Chemicals Private Ltd. Versus ITO-Ward 1 (5), Chandigarh - TMI ISSUES: Whether the addition of Rs. 75 Lacs under Section 68 for an unsecured loan was justified in absence of fulfillment of conditions regarding genuineness and creditworthiness of the lender.Whether the assessee was required to prove the 'source of the source' of the unsecured loan for the Assessment Year 2012-13.Whether the reopening of assessment under Section 147 read with Section 148 was valid and in accordance with law, based on the reasons recorded and information received.Whether the Assessing Officer was required to establish conclusive escapement of income at the stage of reopening the assessment. RULINGS / HOLDINGS: The addition of Rs. 75 Lacs under Section 68 was upheld as the assessee 'failed to prove the creditworthiness of the lender as well as the genuineness of the transaction,' and did not fulfill the conditions of Section 68.The Court held that the amendment requiring explanation of the 'source of the source' of loans was not applicable for unsecured loans for the relevant Assessment Year, but the assessee still failed to prove the genuineness of the loan on merits.The reopening of the assessment was held valid since the Assessing Officer had 'formed a reasonable belief' based on tangible information from DDIT (Inv.), and 'was not expected to conclude the issue finally or ascertain the fact by evidence or conclusion' at the reopening stage.It was held that at the stage of reopening, 'reason to believe and not established fact of escapement of income' is required, and the Assessing Officer complied with due process including obtaining requisite approval and providing opportunities of hearing. RATIONALE: The Court applied the statutory provisions of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act regarding unexplained cash credits and the procedural safeguards under Sections 147 and 148 for reopening assessments.The Court relied on precedent that at the reopening stage, the Assessing Officer need only have 'reason to believe' and not conclusive proof of escapement of income, citing decisions such as Rajesh Jhaveri Sock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. and Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd.The Court emphasized the failure of the assessee to provide basic KYC details, PAN, address of the lender, and any evidence linking the funds to a legitimate source, despite the lender becoming a shareholder.No unique doctrinal shift or dissent was noted; the Court affirmed established principles concerning reopening jurisdiction and evidentiary requirements under Section 68.