2025 (12) TMI 417 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 deleted as unexplained cash credit loans proven with documents; reliance on search report held insufficient

The ITAT Kolkata allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting the addition made u/s 68 on account of alleged unexplained cash credit in the form of loans from ... Unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 - loan taken from the EAPL - HELD THAT:- We find that the assessee filed all the evidences before the learned AO as well as before the CIT (A). The documents qua the loan raised from Eiffel Agencies Pvt. Ltd. and the authorities have failed to point out any defect or discrepancy in the same and mainly relied on the report of the search team that the assessee has received accommodation entries through these companies. Mere fact that the loan creditors company had low income in the form of operating profit or no fixed assets or incurred very low expenses is not the criteria as has been held in the case of CIT vs. Ms. Mayawati [2011 (8) TMI 12 - DELHI HIGH COURT] Also, in case of PCIT vs. Sreeleathers [2022 (7) TMI 747 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] has held that where the assessee has furnished all the evidences with the AO and then no addition can be made if AO has not done any enquiry. We are inclined to set aside the order of learned CIT (A) and direct the AO to delete the addition. The appeal of the assessee is allowed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1.1 Whether addition under section 68 on account of unsecured loan received from a company treated as a 'shell/Jamakarchi company' was justified when the assessee had furnished primary evidences establishing the loan transaction. 1.2 Whether disallowance of interest paid on the aforesaid loan was sustainable when the principal addition under section 68 was deleted. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Addition under section 68 in respect of unsecured loan from Eiffel Agencies Pvt. Ltd. (a) Legal framework (as discussed) 2.1 The addition was made under section 68 treating the unsecured loan received by the amalgamating company (subsequently merged with the assessee) from Eiffel Agencies Pvt. Ltd. as unexplained cash credit, on the basis that the lender was a 'Jamakarchi'/shell company and the case arose out of search proceedings under section 132. 2.2 The Tribunal referred to the principle that when an assessee furnishes all primary evidences regarding a loan transaction, no addition can be made under section 68 without the Assessing Officer conducting further enquiry or pointing out defects, as recognized in binding precedent of the jurisdictional High Court. (b) Interpretation and reasoning 2.3 The Tribunal recorded that the assessee had furnished all relevant documentary evidences in support of the loan from Eiffel Agencies Pvt. Ltd. both before the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner (Appeals), and that neither authority pointed out any defect or discrepancy in such evidences. 2.4 It was noted that the authorities relied mainly on the report of the search team alleging that the assessee received accommodation entries through such companies and on the financial profile of the lender, namely low operating income, absence of fixed assets, low expenses and profit figures. 2.5 The Commissioner (Appeals) had confirmed the addition primarily on the ground that the lender had a net worth of about Rs. 10 crores but had shown very low profits from operations in the immediately preceding years. 2.6 The Tribunal held that mere low income, low operating profit, absence of fixed assets or low expenses in the lender's accounts cannot by themselves be determinative to treat the loan as unexplained, when documentary evidences of the loan are on record and remain uncontroverted. 2.7 Relying on the ratio that, where the assessee has furnished evidences and the Assessing Officer does not carry out proper enquiry or record any adverse finding on such evidences, addition under section 68 is not sustainable, the Tribunal found that the authorities had failed to conduct meaningful enquiry beyond relying on generalized allegations in the search report. (c) Conclusions 2.8 The Tribunal concluded that the conditions for invoking section 68 were not satisfied, as the assessee had discharged its onus by furnishing all relevant evidences, and the revenue had neither disproved those evidences nor conducted further enquiry. 2.9 The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit under section 68 was set aside, and the Assessing Officer was directed to delete the said addition. Issue 2: Disallowance of interest paid on loan from Eiffel Agencies Pvt. Ltd. (a) Interpretation and reasoning 2.10 The disallowance of interest amounting to Rs. 13,315/- paid to Eiffel Agencies Pvt. Ltd. was made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) solely as a corollary to the addition of the principal loan under section 68. 2.11 The Tribunal observed that this issue was purely consequential to the principal addition; once the loan itself was held to be genuine and the section 68 addition deleted, there remained no basis to sustain the disallowance of interest on such loan. (b) Conclusions 2.12 Following the deletion of the section 68 addition, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on this issue and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance of interest of Rs. 13,315/-.