2025 (12) TMI 540 - AT - Income Tax

ITAT deletes additions on corporate loans, holds assessee proved identity, creditworthiness, genuineness under Sections 68 and 69C

ITAT Mumbai allowed the assessee's appeal and deleted the additions made u/s 68 towards unsecured loan and u/s 69C towards interest thereon received from ... Addition u/s. 68 - interest paid on such loan u/s. 69C - AR submitted that, the assessee provided preliminary documents to establish the creditworthiness, genuineness and identity of the loan transactions undertaken by assessee from Duke Business Pvt. Ltd. - HELD THAT:- Assessee furnished relevant details as called for by the Ld. AO in respect of the loan creditor during assessment proceedings. AO did not carry out any verification of the evidence submitted by the assessee as regard the source in the hands of the lenders. We agree with the DR that the genuineness of the transaction does not get established even though the assessee filed all relevant documents required to discharge its onus u/s. 68 - observation in case of H.R. Mehta [2016 (7) TMI 273 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] squarely applies to the present facts of the case. Once the repayment is made by assessee, it is established, the provisions of section 69 would not be applicable unless the revenue disproves the evidences furnished in respect of repayment. In the present facts interest was paid by the assessee to the lenders which has also not been disproved by the revenue. The decisions relied by the DR PAVANKUMAR M SANGHVI VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER [2018 (2) TMI 1161 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] is distinguishable with present facts in this specific circumstances. It is noted that, there was no repayment of loan by the assessee therein, based on which the Tribunal took such view. Thus the ratio of the decisions relied by DR is not applicable to the peculiar facts of therein present assessee. Based on the above we are of the opinion that the addition made by the Ld.AO in the present facts of the case deserves to be deleted. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1.1. Whether the addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit under section 68, alleged to be an accommodation entry from a concern connected with a known hawala operator, was justified on the facts and evidentiary record. 1.2. Whether the disallowance of Rs. 3,78,740/- as unexplained expenditure under section 69C, being interest paid on the aforesaid loan, was sustainable. 1.3. Whether reliance by the revenue on third-party statements and investigation material, without providing such material to the assessee or affording cross-examination, met the requirements of natural justice in sustaining the impugned additions. 1.4. Effect of repayment of the impugned loan and payment of interest through banking channels, and deduction of tax at source, on the applicability of sections 68 and 69C. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS 2.1. Addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit under section 68 2.1.1. Legal framework (as discussed) 2.1.1.1. The Tribunal proceeded on the basis that the assessee bears the initial onus under section 68 to establish identity of the creditor, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction. The Commissioner (Appeals) had held that the assessee failed to establish creditworthiness and genuineness as required under section 68. 2.1.1.2. The Tribunal considered the ratio of the jurisdictional High Court in a case where additions were based on statements and material obtained behind the assessee's back, without supplying such material or permitting cross-examination, holding that such denial of opportunity violates principles of natural justice and vitiates the addition. 2.1.2. Interpretation and reasoning 2.1.2.1. The Tribunal recorded that the assessee had furnished confirmations, bank statements and other documentary evidence relating to the loan from the lender, and that the loan was repaid with interest through account payee cheques, with tax deducted at source on the interest. 2.1.2.2. It was noted that the Assessing Officer relied solely on information from the Investigation Wing and the statement of the alleged hawala operator, without conducting any independent verification of the lender's source of funds and without confronting the assessee with such material or allowing cross-examination. 2.1.2.3. While agreeing with the revenue that mere filing of documents does not, by itself, conclusively establish genuineness, the Tribunal held that in view of the jurisdictional High Court's decision, once the assessee demonstrates repayment of the loan through banking channels and there is no rebuttal of such evidence by the revenue, the onus shifts and additions under section 69 (and by parity, allied deeming provisions invoked on the same premise) cannot be sustained without the department disproving the repayment evidence. 2.1.2.4. Applying the cited High Court decision, the Tribunal emphasised that the revenue was bound to provide the material used against the assessee and to allow cross-examination of the person whose statement was relied upon. Failure to do so constituted a denial of natural justice that went to the root of the matter. 2.1.2.5. The Tribunal distinguished the decision of another High Court, relied upon by the revenue, affirming an order where entities controlled by the same hawala operator had been treated as shell companies, on the factual ground that in that case there was no repayment of the loans by the assessee, whereas in the present case the loan was admittedly repaid with interest, and the repayment evidence remained undisputed. 2.1.3. Conclusions 2.1.3.1. In the absence of any attempt by the Assessing Officer to disprove the assessee's evidence of repayment and interest payment through banking channels, and in light of the denial of opportunity to meet the investigation material and cross-examine the deponent, the addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- could not be sustained. 2.1.3.2. The Tribunal held that, on the peculiar facts, the addition in respect of the alleged bogus unsecured loan deserved to be deleted and accordingly deleted the addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. 2.2. Disallowance of Rs. 3,78,740/- as unexplained expenditure under section 69C in respect of interest on the loan 2.2.1. Legal framework (as discussed) 2.2.1.1. The Assessing Officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) invoked section 69C to disallow interest paid to the same lender, on the footing that the underlying loan was a bogus accommodation entry and that expenditure on such bogus entry could not be allowed as incurred for business purposes. The Commissioner (Appeals) expressly linked this to the assessee's alleged failure under section 68 to prove creditworthiness and genuineness of the loan. 2.2.2. Interpretation and reasoning 2.2.2.1. The Tribunal noted that the interest was paid through banking channels to the lender and that the revenue did not disprove either the fact of such payment or the deduction of tax at source on the interest. 2.2.2.2. Referring again to the jurisdictional High Court's reasoning, the Tribunal treated the undisputed repayment of principal and payment of interest through account payee cheques as a key factual distinction from cases where loans were treated as mere paper entries without any genuine outflow or repayment. 2.2.2.3. Given that the foundational addition in respect of the loan itself was unsustainable for want of proper evidentiary rebuttal and violation of natural justice, the Tribunal held that the consequential disallowance of interest, premised solely on the alleged bogus nature of the loan, could not independently survive. 2.2.3. Conclusions 2.2.3.1. The Tribunal upheld that the interest payment had not been disproved and that the rationale adopted by the lower authorities-treating the interest as expenditure on a bogus entry-was untenable once the loan addition itself was deleted. 2.2.3.2. The disallowance of Rs. 3,78,740/- under section 69C, being interest on the impugned loan, was therefore deleted. 2.3. Principles of natural justice in use of investigation material and third-party statements 2.3.1. Legal framework (as discussed) 2.3.1.1. The Tribunal relied on the jurisdictional High Court's exposition that where additions are founded on seized material and third-party statements, the assessee must be provided copies of such material and an effective opportunity to cross-examine the deponent; denial of these rights amounts to violation of principles of natural justice, rendering the addition unsustainable. 2.3.1.2. The Tribunal also referred to the Supreme Court's observations that an adjudicating authority cannot presuppose the irrelevance of cross-examination and must afford such opportunity when requested. 2.3.2. Interpretation and reasoning 2.3.2.1. It was observed that the Assessing Officer made the additions by relying on the statement of the alleged hawala operator and investigation inputs, without furnishing such material to the assessee and without granting the requested opportunity for cross-examination. 2.3.2.2. Applying the cited precedents, the Tribunal treated this as a substantive procedural defect that went to the very foundation of the additions, rather than a mere irregularity, particularly in the context of the assessee having produced primary evidence of banking-channel transactions and repayments. 2.3.3. Conclusions 2.3.3.1. The additions based solely on investigation material and third-party statements, without confronting the assessee with such material and without allowing cross-examination, were held to be vitiated by breach of natural justice. 2.3.3.2. This breach formed an independent ground, along with the undisputed repayment and interest payment, for deleting both the loan addition and the related interest disallowance. 2.4. Status of legal grounds on reassessment validity 2.4.1. The Tribunal recorded that although grounds challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings were raised, the assessee chose to argue the appeal on merits. Having allowed the appeal on merits, the Tribunal expressly kept the legal grounds on reassessment jurisdiction open, treating them as academic and not adjudicating upon them.