TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 1398
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....osed of by this consolidated order. However, for the sake of convenience, the facts for assessment year 2012-13 are being discussed first, and the conclusion therefrom shall, save and except for variation in figures, govern assessment year 2013-14 as well. 2. In assessment year 2012-13, the assessee has challenged the addition of Rs. 5,57,26,977 made under section 68 and the further disallowance/addition of Rs. 23,98,706 representing interest payable on the loan from Shri Mahendra Gumanmal Lodha. In assessment year 2013-14, the assessee has challenged addition of Rs. 10,45,65,000 made under section 68. The controversy, in essence, is whether the unsecured loans received by the assessee from Shri Mahendra Gumanmal Lodha and M/s Dhawalgiri Properties Pvt. Ltd. could be treated as unexplained cash credits merely on the strength of information received from the Investigation Wing, Ahmedabad and on certain inferences drawn by the Assessing Officer from the balance sheets of the said parties, despite the assessee having placed on record confirmations, tax returns, bank statements, assessment orders, ledger accounts and other documentary materials in support of the loans. 3. The bri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... balance stood at Rs. 11,02,43,926. On this basis, the Assessing Officer concluded that fresh borrowings during the year from these two parties aggregated to Rs. 5,57,26,977 and called upon the assessee to explain why the same should not be treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68 and why the interest thereon should not be disallowed. 5. The show cause issued by the Assessing Officer specifically required the assessee to furnish the details of unsecured loans and further to produce Shri Mahendra Gumanmal Lodha along with his books of account, bank statements, and documentary evidence for all transactions undertaken by him during the relevant previous year. The assessee was also asked to explain the nature of his business or profession, the nature of his transactions with the assessee company and with other companies which had advanced loans to the assessee, the list of bank accounts operated by him, and the source of credits appearing in those bank accounts. Thus, the line of inquiry adopted by the Assessing Officer was not based on any cash found with the assessee nor on any seized material showing accommodation entries in the hands of the assessee, but rather on the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....imes his capital. He further noticed that out of such borrowings, a sum of Rs. 13,41,68,529 had itself been borrowed from M/s Dhawalgiri Properties Pvt. Ltd. It was then inferred that these capital and borrowed funds were shown as utilized for making investments in shares of various companies, partnership firms, PPF and LIC aggregating to Rs. 6,25,81,820, and for extending loans and advances to the extent of Rs. 46,35,20,313. The Assessing Officer further noted that the capital account of Shri Lodha for the year under consideration included profit of Rs. 6,93,97,788 earned during the year as against the opening balance of Rs. 3,75,20,416, and that the returned income disclosed by him was Rs. 4,64,47,470 comprising mainly interest income of Rs. 6,05,29,422. From these facts, the Assessing Officer drew an adverse inference that despite utilizing huge borrowings for onward lending, Shri Lodha had himself not paid any interest to his own creditors, and therefore his financial affairs lacked commercial credibility. 9. The Assessing Officer then turned to M/s Dhawalgiri Properties Pvt. Ltd. and analyzed its balance sheet as on 31.03.2012. He observed that the said company had share ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) 13,20,249 Net Profit 12,82,681 16,20,674 14,02,552 10. The Assessing Officer thereafter travelled even further and observed that the assessee company was one of the shareholders of M/s Dhawalgiri Properties Pvt. Ltd. holding 990 shares, being 9.90 per cent, and that M/s Dhawalgiri had in the preceding year as well as in the year under consideration extended non interest bearing loans to Shri Mahendra Lodha and to the assessee company. He thus inferred that the main source of loan to the assessee, directly as well as indirectly, was M/s Dhawalgiri Properties Pvt. Ltd. and that once there was, according to him, unexplained weakness in the creditworthiness of the main lender, the identity of the real creditor had itself not been proved, let alone the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions. The Assessing Officer also went to the extent of observing that because M/s Dhawalgiri Properties Pvt. Ltd. was subsequently amalgamated with the assessee with effect from 01.04.2013, such amalgamation must have been resorted to for covering up non genuine loan transactions between the two concerns and Shri Mahendra Lodha. On this chain of reasoning, he held that the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roper analytical reasoning, cannot be accorded much persuasive weight. 13. Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the entire addition is fundamentally misconceived. He pointed out that the assessee had disclosed the loans in its books, that the opening balances were accepted in the earlier years, that the fresh amounts received during the years were through account payee cheques, and that substantial repayments had also been made during the very same year. It was submitted that in assessment year 2012-13, from M/s Dhawalgiri Properties Pvt. Ltd. the assessee received only Rs. 1,50,52,977 during the year but repaid Rs. 11,60,72,000, resulting in nil closing balance; and from Shri Mahendra Lodha, the assessee received Rs. 4,06,74,000, repaid Rs. 7,30,90,475, and carried closing balance of Rs. 11,02,43,926. Likewise, in assessment year 2013-14, the amount of Rs. 10,29,85,000 received from M/s Dhawalgiri was fully repaid in the same year, and the old balance outstanding in Shri Lodha's account was also largely squared up. According to him, such running account transactions through banking channels and accompanied by corresponding repayments cannot be brushed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... therefore undertakes deeper inquiry, and a case where such doubt is ultimately translated into an addition under section 68. The former is permissible and often necessary; the latter can be sustained only when the Revenue is able to bring on record tangible and cogent material to show that the credits appearing in the assessee's books are not what they purport to be. In the present case, the assessment order is undoubtedly elaborate in its numerical and inferential analysis of the finances of Shri Mahendra Gumanmal Lodha and M/s Dhawalgiri Properties Pvt. Ltd., but despite that elaborate exercise, the crucial connecting link is missing, namely, any direct or even circumstantially compelling material to establish that the monies received by the assessee through banking channels represented its own undisclosed income introduced in the guise of loans. 17. The settled legal framework under section 68 requires the assessee to establish, at the threshold, the identity of the creditor, the genuineness of the transaction, and the prima facie creditworthiness of the creditor. Once material is furnished in support of these ingredients, the initial burden cast upon the assessee stands dis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... leans decisively in favour of the assessee. The amounts were received through account payee cheques and were duly reflected in the regular books of account. Ledger accounts of the creditors were furnished. Bank statements of Shri Lodha were produced. Party wise summaries of credits in his bank accounts were submitted. Interest on the loan from Shri Lodha was accounted for, and tax was deducted at source thereon. More significantly, these were not stagnant or artificial end of year book entries created merely to inflate liabilities; they formed part of running accounts in which substantial repayments were also made during the year. In assessment year 2012-13, the assessee received Rs. 1,50,52,977 from M/s Dhawalgiri Properties Pvt. Ltd. but repaid Rs. 11,60,72,000 during the same year, resulting in nil closing balance. Likewise, from Shri Lodha, against fresh receipts of Rs. 4,06,74,000, repayments of Rs. 7,30,90,475 were made, leaving a reduced carried forward balance. In assessment year 2013-14 also, the entire fresh amount of Rs. 10,29,85,000 received from M/s Dhawalgiri was repaid during the same year itself, and the account of Shri Lodha too was substantially squared up. These....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ally telling is the complete absence of any direct nexus brought on record by the Revenue between the impugned credits and the assessee's own unaccounted funds. There is no statement from any entry operator. There is no evidence of cash being provided by the assessee to obtain cheques in return. There is no incriminating material unearthed in search, survey, investigation, or third party proceedings showing that these very transactions were accommodation entries. There is no finding that the source credits in the lenders' bank accounts were unexplained cash deposits or were themselves fabricated credits inserted for the purpose of passing on funds to the assessee. The entire exercise of the Assessing Officer, if carefully read, stops at the point of distrust; it never crosses into the territory of proof. Tax adjudication, especially under a deeming provision like section 68, cannot rest merely on a belief that because the financial affairs of the creditors appear convoluted, the assessee's credits must necessarily be bogus. There has to be some material from which such conclusion reasonably and legally follows. Here, the conclusion runs ahead of the evidence. 22. We also find th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thority. There is no reasoned analysis in the appellate order as to why the evidence furnished by the assessee was insufficient; there is only a broad affirmation. Such an approach does not meet the requirement of a speaking order. 24. We are thus left with a case where the assessee has disclosed the loans in its books, furnished the identity particulars of the creditors, produced their income tax details, returns, bank statements, ledger accounts, and even a completed scrutiny assessment in the case of Shri Lodha; where the transactions are routed through banking channels; where substantial repayments have been made during the year itself; where no defect in the documentary trail has been shown; where no cash trail or accommodation entry material has been brought on record; and where the appellate authority has merely confirmed the assessment without independent reasoning. On these facts, to sustain additions under section 68 would be to invert the statutory burden and to hold, in effect, that once the Revenue entertains suspicion about the commercial structure of a creditor, documentary evidence becomes irrelevant. That is not the law. The assessee's burden is to furnish a cre....