2025 (9) TMI 631 - AT - Income Tax

Appellate body upholds deletion of Rs.50 lakh addition under s.68 after remand reconciled loans; no capital gains on land sale

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Meerut Versus Smt. Kamlesh., Ghaziabad

ITAT DELHI - AT upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s deletion of a Rs. 50 lakh addition under s.68, noting the assessee furnished details during remand and the AO ... Addition u/s 68 - unexplained unsecured loans - HELD THAT:- The addition in the assessment order was made due to the fact that no details were filed by the assessee during the assessment proceedings. However, upon submission of the details, no adverse comment has been given by the Assessing Officer in the remand report. Therefore, no interference is called for in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 50 lakhs. Grounds of appeal no.1 and 2 of the Revenue are dismissed. Addition of unsecured loan - As corrected statement of affairs were submitted to the AO during the remand proceedings, as per which there is no difference between the unsecured loan as per books and as per the net worth statement. However, upon submission of the details, no adverse comment has been given by the Assessing Officer in the remand report. Therefore, no interference is called for in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition. Addition being the Short Term Capital Gain - nature of land sold - whether land which was purchased in F.Y. 2013-14 was not an agricultural land? - HELD THAT:- The Co-ordinate Bench of Delhi Tribunal [2024 (12) TMI 497 - ITAT DELHI] has already affirmed the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and held that the land which was purchased in F.Y. 2013-14 was not an agricultural land. During the year, the assessee has sold the same land, which was held to be not a capital asset as discussed above and therefore, the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) that there will no capital gains on the same is justified and the same is upheld. Decided against revenue. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether additions under section 68 in respect of unsecured loans (Rs. 50,00,000 and Rs. 44,50,000) were justified where relevant details were not placed before the Assessing Officer during assessment but were subsequently filed before the Appellate Commissioner with an application under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 and the Assessing Officer in the remand report did not make adverse comments on those details. 2. Whether a discrepancy between unsecured loan totals as shown in the net worth statement and in the details of unsecured loans (difference Rs. 44,50,000) rendered that portion an unexplained credit under section 68 where the assessee corrected the net worth statement during appellate remand and the Assessing Officer did not oppose the correction in the remand report. 3. Whether short-term capital gains (Rs. 11,87,656) arising from sale of land were taxable as capital gains where the land was held to be agricultural land (not a capital asset) in an earlier appellate order affirmed by a co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal. 4. Whether reliance on authorities stating the Assessing Officer may draw adverse inference where source is not satisfactorily proved (e.g., Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif and Som Nath Maini) required a different outcome in absence of adverse comments in the remand report and where the assessee produced evidence on appeal under Rule 46A. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Addition of Rs. 50,00,000 under section 68 where evidence furnished first on appeal under Rule 46A Legal framework: Section 68 permits treating unexplained cash credits/loans as income where the assessee fails to prove identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of creditors. Rule 46A permits admission of evidence during appellate proceedings and remand to the Assessing Officer for verification. Precedent Treatment: The Revenue invoked general propositions that where an assessee fails to satisfactorily establish source/nature of amounts, AO may draw adverse inference. Those authorities were noted but not applied to alter outcome given factual matrix. Interpretation and reasoning: The AO made the addition because no details were produced during assessment. On appeal the assessee filed loan confirmations, lender bank accounts and ITRs under Rule 46A. The matter was remanded; the Assessing Officer's remand report recorded the submissions and made no adverse comments challenging identity/genuineness/creditworthiness. The Tribunal treated absence of adverse remark in remand report as material: where the AO, after receiving the particulars on remand, did not dispute them, the addition based on earlier non-production cannot stand. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where evidence regarding identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of creditors is produced on appeal under Rule 46A, remanded to the AO and the AO does not make adverse comments in the remand report, section 68 addition made earlier for non-production is not sustainable. Obiter - General references to cases permitting AO to draw adverse inference remain applicable as broad principle but do not change this factual application. Conclusion: Deletion of addition of Rs. 50,00,000 upheld; Revenue's grounds on this point dismissed. Issue 2 - Addition of Rs. 44,50,000 on alleged discrepancy between net worth statement and unsecured loan details Legal framework: Section 68 additions can be made where credits remain unexplained. Net worth statements and particulars of liabilities are relevant documents; rectification of clerical or disclosure errors and admissions may affect the application of section 68. Precedent Treatment: No specific contrary precedent was applied by the Tribunal to sustain the AO's addition once the assessee corrected the statement and AO did not press an objection in remand report. Interpretation and reasoning: The AO relied on a numerical mismatch between net worth statement and loan detail totals to treat Rs. 44,50,000 as unexplained. On appeal the assessee submitted that the disparity arose from a mistake in the net worth statement and furnished corrected statements during remand proceedings. The Assessing Officer's remand report did not make adverse comments upon the corrected filings. The Tribunal concluded that where the discrepancy was corrected and the AO, after remand and opportunity, made no objection, the section 68 addition could not be sustained. The AO had also not identified any specific lender in respect of the disputed amount when invoking section 68. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - A numerical discrepancy in self-filed statements, once corrected on remand and not objected to by the AO in the remand report, cannot justify a section 68 addition without further specific adverse material. Obiter - The principle that mere non-compliance or initial non-production can justify inquiry remains, but must be tied to disputed facts not subsequently clarified on remand. Conclusion: Deletion of addition of Rs. 44,50,000 upheld; Revenue's grounds on this point dismissed. Issue 3 - Taxability of Rs. 11,87,656 as short-term capital gain on sale of land held to be agricultural (not a capital asset) Legal framework: Capital gains provisions apply only if the asset sold is a 'capital asset' within the meaning of the Act. Agricultural land may, depending on its character and location, not constitute a capital asset for capital gains purposes. Precedent Treatment: A previous appellate order (by a different bench) held the subject land was agricultural and not a capital asset for an earlier assessment year; that finding was affirmed by a co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal. Interpretation and reasoning: The Assessing Officer treated an amount disclosed in the statements of affairs as short-term capital gain because no details were tendered during assessment. On appeal, the Commissioner and a co-ordinate bench had earlier concluded the land was agricultural and not a capital asset. The Tribunal relied on those affirmed findings; since the land did not qualify as a capital asset, the capital gains provisions did not apply and the addition was not sustainable. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - When a bench has adjudicated that particular land is agricultural and not a capital asset and that finding is affirmed by a co-ordinate bench, subsequent assessment inclusion of capital gains on sale of that land is not maintainable. Obiter - General legislative and legal principles on characterization of land remain applicable but do not alter the outcome where factual classification has been judicially determined. Conclusion: Deletion of Rs. 11,87,656 held by the Tribunal to be correct; Revenue's ground on this point dismissed. Issue 4 - Applicability of authorities permitting AO to draw adverse inference where assessee fails to prove source (Kale, Som Nath Maini) Legal framework: Courts have recognized that when an assessee fails to satisfactorily explain receipts the AO may draw adverse inference and tax such receipts. Precedent Treatment: Such authorities were cited by Revenue but the Tribunal did not apply them to reverse the appellate outcome because the factual matrix differed: material evidentiary documents were produced on appeal, the matter was remanded, and the AO did not record adverse findings in the remand report. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal distinguished the general proposition from the facts here. The cited authorities support AO's power to draw inference only where the assessee fails to adduce satisfactory proof. Where evidence is adduced on appeal under Rule 46A and the AO, after remand, does not dispute those particulars, it is not appropriate to sustain an addition under section 68 merely by invoking those precedents. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - General propositions permitting AO to draw adverse inferences do not justify sustaining additions where the assessee produces evidence on appeal and the AO in remand proceedings does not dispute it. Obiter - The cited authorities remain good law for circumstances where an assessee persists in non-production of material proof. Conclusion: Reliance on Kale and Som Nath Maini did not warrant reversal of the deletions in the particular factual context; Revenue's contention on this ground rejected. Final Disposition All grounds of the Revenue's appeal dismissed; the Tribunal affirmed the deletions under section 68 (Rs. 50,00,000 and Rs. 44,50,000) and the deletion of the short-term capital gains addition (Rs. 11,87,656) on the bases and reasoning set out above.