Case Law Details
Alom Extrusions Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Kolkata)
Loans Through Banking Channels Cannot Be Treated as Bogus Merely on ‘Shell Company’ Allegation: ITAT Deletes ₹3 Crore Section 68 Addition
The Kolkata ITAT deleted ₹3 crore addition made under Section 68 against Alom Extrusions Limited after holding that unsecured loans received through banking channels from corporate entities cannot be treated as unexplained cash credits merely on the basis of generalized allegations that the lenders were “shell companies.”
The reassessment was initiated based on investigation wing information alleging that the assessee had received accommodation entries from M/s Sagittarians Credit Capital Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Kokila Exports Pvt. Ltd. The Assessing Officer treated loans aggregating to ₹3 crore as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 despite the assessee furnishing extensive documentary evidence including PAN details, audited balance sheets, ITR acknowledgements, MCA records, bank statements, ledger accounts and loan confirmations of both lender companies.
The Tribunal noted that notices issued under Section 133(6) were duly complied with and the lenders themselves confirmed the transactions. It further observed that both lender companies were duly incorporated corporate entities assessed to income tax and possessed substantial net worth. Importantly, all transactions were routed through banking channels and the loans had subsequently been repaid along with interest.
Relying upon multiple Calcutta High Court rulings including PCIT vs. Rahul Premier India Agency Pvt. Ltd. and earlier decision in assessee’s own case, the ITAT held that once the assessee establishes identity of creditors, genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness through documentary evidence, additions under Section 68 cannot survive merely on suspicion or investigation wing reports.
The Tribunal also noted that the Assessing Officer ignored crucial evidences and proceeded largely on surmises and conjectures without disproving the documents placed on record. Accordingly, the ITAT held that the assessee had fully discharged the burden cast under Section 68 and deleted the entire addition of ₹3 crore.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT KOLKATA
This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 31.03.2022 of the Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax passed under Section 147 of the Assessment Year 2013-14 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).
2. The brief facts of the case of the assessee is that assessee filed original return of income u/s 139 of the Act for the instant AY on 27.09.2013 declaring total income at Rs. 11,35,610/-. A search & seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 28.11.2015 and subsequent dates against the persons and business concerns of Jhunjhunwala group at various premises in Kolkata. Later the assessment u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act was completed on 31.12.2017 assessing total income at Rs. 12.08,144/-. Later, an information in the case of M/s Alom Extrusion Limited was received from DDIT (Inv.) Unit-1(4), Kolkata that the assessee had taken entry from two shell companies namely M/s Sagittarians Credit Capital Pvt. Ltd. & M/s Kokila Exports Pvt. Ltd. of Rs.50,00,000/- & Rs. 1,75,00,000/- respectively. On the basis of the said information, the case of the assessee was reopened with recording of reasons by the AO with prior approval of the respective higher authority. The reasons for reopening were duly provided to the assessee by the AO. The assessee, later had raised objection on reopening and the same has been disposed off by the AO in timely manner. Later, a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee by the AO on 31.03.2021. In response to the same, the assessee had filed its return of income for the instant AY on 06.04.2021 declaring total income Rs. 12,08,150/-. Thereafter, notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee in timely manner. Later, a notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued on the assessee on 24.01.2022 with the requisite questionaries. In response to the same, the assessee had submitted all the relevant details and documents viz. various financial statements including the details of unsecured loan taken during the year under consideration. The same was perused by the AO and the case was heard. Later, the assessment order u/s 147 of the Actdated 31.03.2022 was passed by the AO determining total income of the assessee at Rs.3,12,08,150/-. On perusal of the assessment order, it is observed that the AO had made additions on one ground only viz. unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act of Rs. 3,00,00,000/-
Aggrieved by the said order assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) wherein appeal of the assessee has been dismissed.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied the assessee preferred appeal before us.
3. The Ld. AR challenges the very impugned order thereby submitting that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- made by Assessing Officers U/s 68 of the Act in respect of loan received from M/s Sagittarians Credit Capital Pvt. Ltd. and further erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,50,00,000/- in respect of loan received from M/s Kokila Exports Pvt Ltd.. The Ld. AR submits that during the assessment proceedings the assessee had submitted all the relevant details and documents in respect of the said two creditors and it is a fact that loan creditors were not shell companies. The Ld. AR further submits that to justify the loan transaction assessee has submitted the ledger of both creditor companies, loan confirmation accounts, audited balance sheet, Pan, MCA data, ITR and bank statement of both lender companies but the Ld. AO did not consider these documents and held the amount received from the aforesaid two companies being an unexplained money only on the basis of surmises and conjectures. The Ld. AR further submits that loan was taken in financial year 2012-13 and the same has been repaid with applicable interest as the loan was taken for business purpose. The Ld AR has brought following decision in support of the case:-
Contrary to that Ld. DR supports the impugned order.
3. Upon hearing the submission of the counsel of the respective parties and on perusal of the impugned order we find that assessee had taken two loans of an amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- and Rs. 2,50,00,000/- from two companies namely M/s Sagittarians Credit Capital Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Kokila exports pvt. Ltd. The assessee in course of assessment proceedings has filed the following papers of both the companies which are as follows:-
Documents of M/s. Sagittarians Credit Capital Pvt. Ltd
a. ITR Acknowledgment
b. Audited Balance Sheet
c. Ledger for entire period till repayment made.
d. Accounts Confirmation
e. Relevant portion of the Bank Statement form wherein Loan given is seen
Documents of M/s. Kokila Exports Pvt. Ltd
a) ITR Acknowledgment
b) Audited Balance Sheet
c) Ledger for entire period till repayment made
d) Accounts Confirmation
e) Ledger of Loan Creditor
f) Relevant Portion of the Bank Statement from wherein Loan given & repayment is seen.
We further find that notice U/s 133(6) was issued on M/s Sagittarians Credit Capital Pvt. Ltd. and in compliance to the said notice they confirmed loan transaction with the assessee company. It is important to mention here that M/s Sagittarians Credit Capital Pvt. And M/s Kokila Exports Pvt. Ltd are a body corporate registered with registrar of companies and also assessed to income tax. From the audited balance enclosed we find that M/s Sagittarians Credit Capital Pvt. Ltd. was having networth of Rs. 34,57,918/- and M/s Kokila Export Limited was having networth of Rs. 93,73,29,498/-. All the loan transaction has been made through banking channels and going over the statement of the bank we find that loan has already been repaid. The assessee has submitted documentary evidences as discussed above with regard to both the companies and established that the companies are not a shell company and the documents shows that loan transaction was in good faith and the same has been repaid by the assessee. We have gone through the cited decision of the assessee and find that Kolkata High Court in a case of PCIT Vs Rahul Premier India Agency Pvt. Ltd has held thus:-
The Court This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 250A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated 9.10.2024 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. “SMC Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal in ITA/1414/Kol/2024 for the assessment year 2013-14.
The assessee has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration:
1. Whether in facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was not justified in law in quashing the reassessment order without considering the fact that the reopening was made on the basis of specific and credible information from the investigation wing of the department ?
2. Whether in facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was not justified in law in deleting the addition of Rs 40,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit U/a.68 of the IT. Act without considering the fact that assessee failed to produce any cogent explanation towards establishing the identity and genuineness of the share transactions?
We have heard learned advocates on either side.
The assessment for the year under consideration, AY 2013-14 was completed under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act by an order dated 15.9.2021 and an amount of Rs.40 lakhs was held to be taxable income of the assessee. The assessee carried the matter on appeal before the National Faceless Appellate Tribunal (NFPAC) which was dismissed by an order dated 7.6.2024. The assessee challenged the said order before the learned Tribunal which was allowed by the impugned order. Aggrieved by the same, the revenue is before us by way of an appeal. The factual details as net out by the learned Tribunal in paragraph 6.1 of the impugned order are not in dispute. In the reasons for reopening, the assessing officer held that income chargeable to tax amounting to Rs.50 lakhs has escaped assessment. However, the consistent case of the assessee was that they had borrowed a sum of Rs.40 lakhs from M/s. Nikhil Holding Pvt. Ltd. and to establish the same they have produced all documents and details apart from the assessment which were framed in the case of M/s. Nikhil Holdings Pvt. Ltd. under section 143(3) read with section 153A of the Act. Apart from that loan confirmation was also filed by the assessee. More importantly, the Tribunal noted that the assessee to establish the genuineness of the transaction produces the books of accounts where it has been recorded the income tax return, balance-sheet, bank statement, loan confirmation and the assessment order of the loan creditors for the same year and no adverse remark was made about the loan given to the assessee. Furthermore, the assessing officer rejected the objection raised by the assessee for reopening of the assessment by merely relying upon the statement of one Lahoti, who was the Director of M/s. Nikhil Holdings Pvt. Ltd. and the request made by the assessee for cross-examination of the said person was denied. Apart from that it is seen that the said loan was availed by the respondent/assessee was repaid back in the subsequent year and the party has confirmed the loan by confirmation which was filed in the re-assessment proceeding and no adverse remark has been made by the assessing officer while completing the assessment. Therefore, the Tribunal, in our view, rightly came to the conclusion that the reopening of the assessment was bad in law. To support the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal several decisions have been relied upon which we feel are not required to be reproduced in this judgment and order as on facts the Tribunal found that the reopening was bad in law.
Thus, we find no question of law much less substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal.
Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Consequently, the application, IA NO: GA/2/2025 stands dismissed.
4. We further find that Kolkata High Court in the case of Alom Extrusion Pvt Ltd has also discussed this issue and held thus:-
The Court: There is a delay of 165 days in filing this appeal. As the delay has been properly explained the same is condoned. The application for condonation of delay being GA/1/2024 stands allowed.
This appeal filed by the Income Tax Department under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated December 14, 2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench, Kolkata (The Tribunal) in ITA No. 908/Kol/2023 for the assessment year 2015-16.
The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration:
Whether the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has committed substantial error in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleting the disallowance made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of unsecured loan from shell companies amounting to Rs.3,00,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit without appreciating the materials brought on record and facts evaluated by the Assessing Officer in the Assessment Order?
Whether the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has committed substantial error in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleting the addition made under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of interest expenses on such unsecured loan ?
We have heard Mr. Tilak Sharma, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Amit Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
The Department was unsuccessful in their challenge before the learned Tribunal wherein they questioned the correctness of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 27, Kolkata (CIT(A)) on 14th June, 2023. By the said order, the [CIT(A)) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and set aside the addition made by the Assessing Officer by invoking power under Section 68 of the Act. As could be seen from the order passed by the learned Tribunal, the Tribunal has examined the factual details after noting the factual findings recorded by the [CIT(A)], more importantly, the learned Tribunal found that all the loans stood repaid, which has also been factually ascertained by the [CIT(A)] and re-affirmed by the Tribunal.
We find the order passed by the [CIT(A)] to be an elaborate order after discussing all the facts. The learned Tribunal has, in fact, quoted the relevant portions of the order passed by the [CIT(A)] and thereafter independently proceeded to examine the correctness of the finding and affirmed the same.
Thus, we are of the view that no questions of law, much less substantial questions of law arises for consideration in this appeal. Hence, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
The stay application being GA/2/2024 also stands dismissed.
5. Keeping in view, the discussion made above and considering the judicial pronouncement we find substance in the arguments of the Ld. Counsel of the assessee is that all the loan transactions were genuine one and assessee has established an identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the loan creditor by filing sufficient documentary evidences as discussed above and moreover the loan as stated repaid. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed, the addition made by the AO confirmed by the CIT(A) are hereby deleted.
As a result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Author Bio
