2025 (8) TMI 874 - AT - Income Tax

Unsecured Loans Confirmed with Documents; Section 68 Additions Deleted as Unsupported by AO

Farmville Enterprise Versus The DCIT, Central Circle-1, Baroda And (Vice-Versa)

Farmville Enterprise Versus The DCIT, Central Circle-1, Baroda And (Vice-Versa) - TMI 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED Whether the Assessing Officer (AO) had jurisdiction to frame assessment under section 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in absence of material belonging to the assessee found during search of another entity. Validity of additions made under section 68 of the Act on account of unsecured loans treated as unexplained cash credits. Legitimacy of additions on account of unrecorded or undisclosed sales receipts and on-money received on sale of plots/flats. Appropriateness of estimating net profit at 17.5% on turnover (including on-money) for determining taxable income. Whether disallowance of interest income related to unsecured loans was justified. Whether the evidence relied upon by AO (including statements and loose papers found during search) was sufficient and relevant to sustain additions. Whether the assessee discharged the onus under section 68 by proving identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of loan creditors. Applicability of precedents regarding treatment of unsecured loans, estimation of net profit, and evidentiary requirements in search and seizure cases. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Jurisdiction under Section 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 153C permits assessment of a person if any undisclosed income or asset belonging to that person is found during search in the premises of another person. Proper satisfaction and material are prerequisites. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that no material belonging to the assessee was found during the search conducted on the group entities. The Additional Grounds of Appeal challenging jurisdiction were not pressed by the assessee and dismissed accordingly. The Tribunal implicitly upheld the framing of assessment under section 153C based on the common search action covering the assessee. Conclusions: No infirmity found in framing assessment under section 153C; jurisdictional challenge dismissed as not pressed. Issue 2: Additions under Section 68 on account of unsecured loans Legal Framework and Precedents: Under section 68, unexplained cash credits are taxable unless the assessee proves identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the lender. Precedents require direct evidence to classify loans as accommodation entries. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The AO made additions on a protective basis treating unsecured loans as unexplained cash credits, relying on statements and loose papers found during search relating to other group entities. The Tribunal held that such loose papers and statements pertaining to other entities cannot be attributed to the assessee. The assessee submitted confirmations, PAN details, bank statements, TDS deductions, and other documents proving genuineness of loans. No incriminating material was found during search at the assessee's premises. The AO failed to produce direct evidence that the loans were bogus or accommodation entries. The Tribunal relied on a coordinate bench decision which deleted similar additions in a common search case where no incriminating material was found. The ratio of a Delhi High Court decision cited by AO was distinguished as it involved proved accommodation entries with known entry providers, unlike the present case. Treatment of Competing Arguments: Revenue relied on investigation reports and statements implicating group entities, but no direct link to assessee's loans was established. The Tribunal rejected reliance on such indirect evidence. Conclusions: Additions under section 68 on account of unsecured loans were not sustainable and were deleted. Corresponding disallowance of interest on such loans was also deleted. Issue 3: Additions on account of unrecorded sales receipts and on-money Legal Framework and Precedents: Additions for undisclosed income must be supported by incriminating evidence. Estimation of undisclosed sales requires reliable material. Mere assumptions or statements relating to other entities are insufficient. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The AO estimated undisclosed sales and on-money based on statements of other group members and a brochure found during search. The brochure contained various rates for different plot colours, which the assessee explained as grass cutting rates. The Tribunal found this explanation plausible and noted that the brochure related to a different assessment year. No direct evidence of on-money receipt was found during search at the assessee's premises. The AO's assumption that on-money was charged in earlier years was not supported by evidence. The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench decision which deleted additions on similar grounds where no incriminating material was found. The AO's method of averaging sale price for estimation was held to be based on conjecture and not reliable. Treatment of Competing Arguments: Revenue argued similarity of modus operandi within group entities, but the Tribunal emphasized the absence of direct evidence against the assessee. The assessee's explanation regarding the brochure was accepted. Conclusions: Additions on account of unrecorded sales receipts and on-money were deleted as they were not supported by reliable evidence. Issue 4: Estimation of net profit at 17.5% on turnover including on-money Legal Framework and Precedents: Estimation of net profit is permissible when books of account are rejected or found unreliable. If books are accepted, estimated profit cannot be imposed. Precedents require reliable evidence to reject books. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The CIT(A) estimated net profit at 17.5% on turnover including on-money based on group disclosures before Settlement Commission and certain High Court decisions. However, the Tribunal, following a coordinate bench decision in a similar case, held that since the assessee's books were not found unreliable or incorrect, estimation of net profit was not justified. The Tribunal noted that all additions on unsecured loans and unaccounted sales were deleted, affirming no infirmity in books. Therefore, applying an estimated net profit rate was untenable. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee argued for acceptance of books and rejection of estimated profit; the Revenue supported the CIT(A)'s estimation. The Tribunal sided with the assessee based on absence of infirmity in books and deletions of additions. Conclusions: Estimation of net profit at 17.5% was not sustainable; additions made on this basis were deleted. Issue 5: Disallowance of interest income related to unsecured loans Legal Framework and Precedents: Interest disallowance is linked to additions on principal unsecured loans under section 68. If principal additions are deleted, interest disallowance is unsustainable. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: Since additions on unsecured loans were deleted, corresponding disallowance of interest income was also deleted. The Tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s deletion of interest disallowance except for a small amount related to a specific loan payment acknowledged by the AO. Conclusions: Disallowance of interest income was deleted except for specific amounts admitted by AO. Issue 6: Reliance on statements and loose papers found during search Legal Framework and Precedents: Evidence found during search must be directly connected to the assessee to be admissible. Loose papers pertaining to other entities cannot be used against the assessee. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal held that statements and loose papers found during search related to other group entities and could not be attributed to the assessee. The AO's reliance on such evidence was misplaced. The Tribunal emphasized settled legal position that such material is relevant only to the entity to which it pertains. Conclusions: Evidence not directly relating to the assessee was inadmissible; additions based on such evidence were unsustainable. Issue 7: Onus of proof under section 68 discharged by the assessee Legal Framework and Precedents: The assessee must prove identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of creditors for unsecured loans to avoid additions under section 68. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The assessee produced confirmations from lenders, PAN details, bank statements showing credit entries through account payee cheques, TDS deductions on interest payments, and other documentary evidence. The Tribunal found that the assessee discharged its onus. The AO failed to bring any direct evidence to rebut this. Conclusions: The assessee successfully discharged the onus under section 68; additions were rightly deleted. Issue 8: Applicability of precedents regarding unsecured loans, estimation of net profit, and evidentiary requirements Legal Framework and Precedents: Reliance on decisions from High Courts and coordinate benches of the Tribunal regarding treatment of unsecured loans, estimation of net profit only when books are rejected, and evidentiary standards in search cases. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal followed coordinate bench decisions which deleted additions on unsecured loans and unaccounted sales in similar search cases where no incriminating material was found. It also followed precedents holding that estimated net profit cannot be imposed if books are accepted. Decisions cited by AO were distinguished on facts. Conclusions: Precedents favored the assessee; additions and estimations not supported by reliable evidence were deleted.