2025 (8) TMI 748 - AT - Income Tax

Section 68 upheld for unexplained cash credits despite books rejected under Section 145(3)

M/s. Sahyog Construction Versus Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1 (1) (1), Vadodara (Previousl y Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1 (3), Vadodara)

M/s. Sahyog Construction Versus Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1 (1) (1), Vadodara (Previousl y Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1 (3), ... 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED Whether an addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, can be made on unexplained cash credits reflected in the books of accounts when the books of accounts themselves have been rejected under Section 145(3) of the Act. Whether the Assessing Officer (AO) and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) were justified in confirming the addition on account of unexplained unsecured loans credited in the assessee's books. Whether the addition under Section 68 can be taxed under Section 115BBE when the amounts credited cannot be held as unexplained. Whether the assessee's repayment of amounts during the year should have been considered to delete the addition made under Section 68. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Legality of addition under Section 68 when books of accounts are rejected under Section 145(3) Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 68 of the Income Tax Act deals with unexplained cash credits. Section 145(3) permits the AO to make an assessment on estimated basis if the books of accounts are found to be incorrect or incomplete. The key precedent is the Supreme Court decision in Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT, which held that even where income is assessed on an estimated basis following rejection of books, the AO can treat credits appearing in the books as income from undisclosed sources under Section 68. This principle was reaffirmed in CIT vs. Devi Prasad Vishwanath and by various High Courts including Punjab & Haryana and Allahabad High Courts. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court emphasized that rejection of books under Section 145(3) does not preclude the AO from relying on entries in those books to make additions under Section 68. The reasoning is that the income estimated on rejection of books is from disclosed sources, whereas unexplained credits represent income from undisclosed sources. Hence, there is no double taxation as the sources differ. The Court rejected the contention that once books are rejected, no addition can be made on the basis of entries therein. Key evidence and findings: The books of accounts were rejected due to non-cooperation and failure to furnish details. The addition under Section 68 related to unsecured loans credited during the year, which were not satisfactorily explained. The assessee did not challenge the rejection of books but argued that the addition under Section 68 could not be based on rejected books. Application of law to facts: Applying the settled legal principle, the Court held that the AO was justified in making addition under Section 68 on unexplained credits despite rejection of books. The entries relating to unsecured loans were rightly treated as unexplained cash credits from undisclosed sources. Treatment of competing arguments: The assessee relied on High Court decisions which held that entries in rejected books cannot be relied upon for additions under Section 68. However, these were distinguished on facts and superseded by the binding Supreme Court precedent. The Revenue opposed the contention as being raised for the first time before the Tribunal and also on merits. Conclusions: The Court dismissed the contention that addition under Section 68 cannot be made once books are rejected. The addition of Rs. 6,58,43,000/- on account of unexplained unsecured loans was upheld. Issue 2: Justification of addition under Section 68 on unsecured loans credited in books Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 68 requires the assessee to satisfactorily explain the nature and source of cash credits. Failure to do so results in addition. The Supreme Court in Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif clarified that unexplained credits can be treated as income from undisclosed sources even if books are rejected. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The AO found the loans to be unsecured and the assessee failed to establish their genuineness. The Court noted the assessee's non-cooperation and absence of credible evidence to explain the source of such large credits. The loans were treated as unexplained cash credits liable to be added to income. Key evidence and findings: The unsecured loans totaling Rs. 6.58 Crores were listed in the assessment order. The assessee did not furnish adequate evidence or details to prove their genuineness or repayment during the year. Application of law to facts: Given the failure to explain the credits, the AO rightly invoked Section 68 and made the addition. The CIT(A) rightly confirmed the addition on the same grounds. Treatment of competing arguments: The assessee argued that repayment during the year should have been considered to delete the addition. The Court found no evidence that the AO accepted such repayment as sufficient explanation. The argument was rejected for lack of substantiation. Conclusions: The addition on account of unexplained unsecured loans was justified and confirmed. Issue 3: Taxation of addition under Section 115BBE when amounts are not unexplained Relevant legal framework: Section 115BBE applies a special tax rate on income arising from unexplained investments, cash credits, etc. The applicability depends on the addition being unexplained. Court's interpretation and reasoning: Since the Court upheld that the credits were unexplained, the application of Section 115BBE was appropriate. The assessee's contention that amounts cannot be held as unexplained was rejected based on failure to prove genuineness. Conclusions: The confirmation of addition and its taxation under Section 115BBE was found to be legally valid. Issue 4: Consideration of repayment of amounts during the year for deletion of addition Court's interpretation and reasoning: The assessee contended that since amounts were repaid during the year, the addition should be deleted. The Court noted that the AO did not accept the repayment as adequate explanation and the assessee failed to produce convincing evidence on this point. Conclusions: The Court held that mere repayment without satisfactory explanation does not absolve the assessee from addition under Section 68. The ground was rejected.