Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter:

Anil Chhaganlal Jain vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 13, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 19, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2013-14
FILE: Click here to download the file in pdf format
CITATION:
S. 68 cash credit: If the assessee has explained the source of the loans received by it, the fact that the lender may have raised bogus share capital to advance the funds to the assessee does not mean that the loan received by the assessee can be treated as unexplained income. A statement recorded under duress, which is retracted later, cannot be the sole basis for addition

(i) There is no dispute to the fact that statement of Shri Harish Sharma was recorded by the Ld. ACIT, which was retracted by him on 23/02/2016 (page-71 of the paper book). Such retraction was duly supported by affidavits (pages 72 to 78 of the paper book). From page-72 (para- 3), it has been specifically, affirmed/tendered that the statement was recorded under duress under threat on 08/01/2016 by Ld. ACIT and Mr. Sharma was coerced to sign the statement. In another affidavit (page-78 of the paper book) in para-6, it has been mentioned that the assessee was threatened by police action/arrest etc and the initial papers were torn off and the assessee was forced to sign certain tight papers, prepared by the ACIT. In such a situation, the authenticity of the statement comes under clouds. Thus, in the light of the foregoing discussion, one clear fact is oozing out that the statement recorded by the officer and retracted by Shri Harish Sharma cannot be the sole basis of making the addition in the hands of the present assessee.

(ii) As per section 68 of the Act, onus is upon the assessee to discharge the burden so caste upon. First burden is upon the assessee to satisfactorily explain the credit entry contained in his books of accounts. The burden has to be discharged with positive material (Oceanic Products Exporting Company vs CIT 241 ITR 497 (Kerala.). The legislature had laid down that in the absence of satisfactory explanation, the unexplained cash credit may be charged u/s 68 of the Act. Our view is fortified by the ratio laid down in Hon’ble Apex Court in P. Mohankala (2007)(291 ITR 278)(SC). A close reading of section 68 and 69 of the Act makes it clear that in the case of section 68, there should be credit entry in the books of account whereas in the case of 69 there may not be an entry in such books of account. The law is well settled, the onus of proving the source of a sum, found to be received/transacted by the assessee, is on him and where it is not satisfactorily explained, it is open to the Revenue to hold that it is income of the assessee and no further burden lies on the Revenue to show that income is from any other particular source. Where the assessee failed to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of such credit, the Revenue is free to make the addition. The principle laid down in Ganpati Mudaliar (1964) 53 ITR 623/A. Govinda Rajulu Mudaliar (34 ITR 807)(SC) and also CIT vs Durga Prasad More (72 ITR 807)(SC) are the landmark decisions. The ratio laid down therein are that if the explanation of the assessee is unsatisfactory, the amount can be treated as income of the assessee. The ratio laid down in Daulat Ram Rawatmal 87 ITR 349 (SC) further supports the case of the assessee. In the case of a cash entry, it is necessary for the assessee to prove not only the identity of the creditor but also the capacity of the creditor and genuineness of the transactions. The onus lies on the assessee, under the facts available on record. A harmonious construction of section 106 of the evidence Act and section 68 of the Income Tax Act will be that apart from establishing the identity of the creditor, the assessee must establish the genuineness of the transaction as well as the creditworthiness of the creditors. In CIT vs Korlay Trading Company Ltd. 232 ITR 820 (Cal.), it was held that mere mention of file number of creditor will not suffice and each entry has to be explained separately by the assessee (CIT vs R.S. Rathaore) 212 ITR 390 (Raj.). The Hon’ble Guwahati High Court in Nemi Chandra Kothari vs CIT (264 ITR 254)(Gau) held that transaction by cheques may not be always sacrosanct. In the present appeal, we note that the assessee has duly proved the identity of the party from where loan was taken, therefore, identity is not in dispute, since, the loan was taken through banking channel, and therefore, its genuineness cannot be doubted. So far as, explanation is concerned, the assessee duly explained the same that the loan was received from M/s Encee Securities Pvt. Ltd. The totality of facts, clearly indicates that the assessee duly discharged the onus caste upon the assessee.

(iii) It is also noted that if the Ld. Assessing Officer was apprehensive about the genuineness of the amount, he was duty bound to examine in the hands of the M/s Encee Securities Pvt. Ltd. or its share holders. At least, the money was germinated from the hands of the share holders, who contributed to M/s Encee Securities Pvt. Ltd. but in the hands of the present assessee, it is merely a loan and this fact has not been denied by any of the party. Even till this date, M/s Encee Securities Pvt. Ltd. has never denied that loan was given to the present assessee, therefore, the assessee is not expected to prove the source of source. In reply to notices, issued u/s 133(6) of the Act dated 19/10/2015 to few unsecured loan parties including M/s Encee Securities Pvt. Ltd., the confirmation was received by the Assessing Officer on 05/11/2015 in tapal. This fact has been mentioned in para 4.4 of the assessment order itself. In para 4.5 of the assessment order, the broad allegation has been thrust upon the business of Shri Shirish Chandrakant Shah, who was described to be receiving unaccounted cash by using 212 companies, owned by him, which includes 16 listed companies. In such a situation, whether the responsibility/addition can be fastened upon the assessee. The obvious reply is no. It is noted that addition has been made in the case of assessee broadly on the basis of statement of Shri Harish Sharma, which was retracted by him, supported by an affidavit. However, the assessee has fulfilled the conditions required u/s 68 of the Act.

(iv) We have also perused the reply dated 25/02/2016 (filed with the ACIT on 26/02/2016 page-48 of the paper book), wherein, it has been specifically mentioned that copy of statement tendered by Shri Harish Sharma was not provided to the assessee. In this reply, the assessee has duly emphasize that no addition can be made on the basis of statement of Shri Harish Sharma as the assessee has discharged the onus caste upon him and the assessee has duly complied with the requirement of section 68 of the Act by proving the identity, capacity and genuineness of the transaction. The reply contained in para-2 (page-48) clearly explains the position of the assessee. The identity of the lender, capacity and genuineness of the loan is not in doubt. Therefore, in our opinion, the addition made by the Assessing Officer in the hands of the present assessee is not justified. As mentioned earlier, if any, foul play is found then addition can be made in the hands of M/s Encee Securities Pvt. Ltd. and not in the hands of the present assessee.

(v) It is also noted that nothing prevented the Ld. Assessing Officer to record the statement of shares subscribers or other persons and confront the assessee, if something is found against the assessee. The present assessee was never examined by the Assessing Officer with respect to the statement tendered by Shri Harish Sharma or Shri Shirish Shah. The present assessee was never provided the statement of Shri Shirish Shah. Neither any query was raised from these persons with respect to the present assessee. Even it is presumed that M/s Encee Securities Pvt. Ltd. got the money from certain share applicants/some persons, how addition can be made u/s 68 in the hands of the present assessee. It seems that addition has been made of the same amount in difference hands like substantive addition in the hands of M/s Encee Securities Pvt. Ltd. and on protective basis in the hands of the present assessee, which cannot be said to be justified. Totality of facts and the circumstances clearly indicates that at least the addition in the hands of the present assessee cannot survive. Even no question was put to Shri Harish Sharma against Shri Shirish Shah, while recording the statement. Thus, considering the totality of facts, and the material available on record, we don’t find any justification to make the addition u/s 68 of the Act in the hands of the present assessee, therefore, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*