2025 (12) TMI 280 - AT - Income Tax

Section 68 loan addition partly set aside, matter remanded for fresh verification of creditworthiness and genuineness

ITAT (Mumbai) partly allowed the assessee's appeal by setting aside the addition u/s 68 and remanding the matter to the AO for fresh verification. The ... Additions u/s. 68 - unexplained cash credit - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the transaction was not correctly recorded or reflected in the audited accounts of the assessee. As such, even during the course of original assessment proceedings, it remained undetected and unverified. Subsequently, on receipt of information after the search action on the lender company, the impugned transaction came to the notice of the ld. AO. After giving due opportunity to the assessee, AO held that no explanation regarding non-disclosure of the loan in the audited balance sheet has been furnished. This fact, coupled with the finding of the department that the lender is a paper entity, led the AO to treat the same as an accommodation entry on the ground that the transaction is not genuine. It is seen that the while the identity of the lender is established, it creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction have not been substantiated to the satisfaction of AO by the assessee. It is also not clear as to on what terms and conditions, the said business loan has been given by the lender and whether any TDS has been deducted on the interest paid. Since balance at the close of F.Y. is stated to be 55,29,641/- it has also not been brought on record as to when and how the loan has been repaid. In view of above facts and circumstances, we deem it appropriate to remand the issue to ld. AO for verification of the genuineness of the transaction. The assessee is also directed to make requisite compliance before the ld. AO. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1.1 Whether the addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit under section 68 read with section 115BBE, on account of a loan shown to have been taken from M/s. Aneri Fincap Ltd., was sustainable in law and on facts. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Addition under section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE in respect of alleged bogus loan of Rs. 50,00,000/- (a) Legal framework (as discussed) 2.1 The Court proceeded on the settled parameters under section 68 that the assessee must satisfactorily establish: (i) identity of the creditor, (ii) creditworthiness of the creditor, and (iii) genuineness of the transaction. The addition was made under section 68 and subjected to section 115BBE. (b) Interpretation and reasoning 2.2 The assessee claimed to have taken a business loan of Rs. 50,00,000/- from M/s. Aneri Fincap Ltd., an NBFC, received through RTGS into its current account, and filed confirmation/ledger of the lender, asserting that identity, creditworthiness and genuineness had been proved. 2.3 The Assessing Officer noted that the alleged loan was not reflected anywhere in the audited balance sheet (neither in long-term nor short-term borrowings) or in Form 3CA-3CD for the relevant year and that no explanation for such non-disclosure was furnished by the assessee. 2.4 Based on information received pursuant to search under section 132 in the One World group, the Investigation Wing reported that M/s. Aneri Fincap Ltd. was a paper company controlled and managed by one person engaged in providing bogus loan entries and that the assessee was a beneficiary of such accommodation entry of Rs. 50,00,000/-. 2.5 The appellate authority held that the assessee remained silent on the non-reporting of the loan in statutory records, and that mere registration with ROC, PAN, return filing and banking channels did not establish creditworthiness or genuineness when the lender was found to be providing bogus entries and no supporting documentation was produced. 2.6 The Tribunal noted that the transaction was admittedly not correctly recorded or reflected in the audited accounts and therefore escaped examination in the original assessment. The reassessment was triggered only after information from the Investigation Wing. 2.7 The Tribunal accepted that the identity of the lender stood established but found that the assessee had not satisfactorily substantiated the creditworthiness of the lender or genuineness of the transaction to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. 2.8 The Tribunal observed that it was not clear from the record: (i) on what terms and conditions the alleged business loan was granted, (ii) whether any TDS had been deducted on interest paid, and (iii) when and how the loan was repaid, particularly in light of the closing balance of Rs. 55,29,641/- stated by the assessee. 2.9 Considering these factual deficiencies, and the contradiction between the assessee's claim of a genuine business loan and the Investigation Wing's report branding the lender as a paper entity, the Tribunal found that the matter required further factual verification rather than being conclusively decided either way at the appellate stage. (c) Conclusions 2.10 The Court held that while the lender's identity is established, the aspects of creditworthiness and genuineness of the impugned cash credit remain inadequately examined on record. 2.11 The issue relating to the addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- under section 68 read with section 115BBE was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after thorough verification of the loan transaction, including documentation on terms, interest, TDS, and repayment. 2.12 The assessee was directed to make full and proper compliance and furnish all requisite evidence before the Assessing Officer, and the appeal was treated as allowed for statistical purposes.