“Explore Section 68 of the Income Tax Act with our comprehensive guide on cash credits. Learn about its purpose, scope, and legal framework, backed by judicial precedents. Understand the significance of providing clear explanations for unexplained cash credits, supported by documentation and due diligence. Stay informed about common scenarios, challenges, and key concepts. Read real-life case reviews, highlighting the importance of compliance and adherence to legal principles. Empower yourself to navigate through the complexities of Section 68 with our in-depth insights. Disclaimer: This article does not constitute professional advice; consult a professional for accurate guidance.”
Introduction to Section 68:
Section 68 of the Income Tax Act plays a pivotal role in addressing unexplained cash credits in a taxpayer’s financial records. Enacted to ensure transparency and legitimacy in financial transactions, this section empowers tax authorities to scrutinize instances where sums of money are credited in a books of taxpayer without satisfactory explanation regarding their sources along with their nature.
Purpose and Context:
It aims to curb potential tax evasion by scrutinizing transactions that lack the clear paper trail. By doing so, tax authorities aim to uphold integrity of a tax system, ensuring that income subject to taxation is accurately declared.
Significance in Taxation:
The importance of Section 68 extends beyond mere legalities; it acts as deterrent against undisclosed income. For taxpayers, being well-versed in implications of this section is crucial to navigating the complexities of tax compliance successfully.
What can be the scope of Section 68 : –
To comprehend functioning of Section 68, it’s imperative to outline its scope. This section is triggered when sum of money is found credited in the books of the taxpayer, and assessee either fails to provide explanation or explanation offered is deemed to be unsatisfactory by assessing officer.
Covered Transactions : –
Section 68 applies to spectrum of transactions, encompassing both financial and non-financial considerations. Whether it’s a loan, gift, share capital, or any other form of credit, if the source is unexplained, tax authorities have jurisdiction to treat the same as income and can impose section 68.
Who are covered under Scrutiny for this section :
It’s important to note that Section 68 is not selective in its application. Individuals, HUF, companies, and other entities all fall within its purview and it ensures comprehensive approach to maintaining integrity of financial records across diverse entities.
Legal Framework of this section : –
Clear understanding of legal framework underpinning Section 68 is vital for both taxpayers and tax practitioners. Section places onus on the taxpayer to furnish satisfactory explanation regarding nature and source of the credit entries.
Burden of Proof :
Taxpayers are required to provide concrete evidence supporting legitimacy of the credited sum. Failure to do so results in sum being treated as the taxpayer’s income for that particular financial year.
Due Diligence by Tax Authorities:
Legal framework empowers tax authorities to conduct a thorough investigation into documentation and explanation provided by assessee. This ensures a fair and just evaluation of the legitimacy of the credit entries.
Judicial Interpretation:
Over the years, courts have played a crucial role in interpreting and refining the application of Section 68. Precedents set by judicial decisions provide valuable insights into the nuances and interpretations of the section.
These sections lay the groundwork for a comprehensive exploration of Section 68, offering readers a solid foundation to delve deeper into the complexities of unexplained cash credits under the Income Tax Act.
Key Concepts : –
To navigate Section 68 effectively, one must grasp two key concepts that form the foundation of this provision.
1. Unexplained Cash Credits :
At the crux of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act is the concept of “unexplained cash credits.” This term encapsulates range of financial entries, including loans, gifts, share capital, or any other credited sum in the taxpayer’s books. defining characteristic of these credits is the absence of clear and satisfactory explanation.
Unexplained cash credits trigger scrutiny from tax authorities when the taxpayer fails to provide convincing account of how and why credited sum entered their financial records. Absence of a transparent explanation raises concerns about legitimacy of the transaction. In essence, Section 68 acts as a safeguard, ensuring that financial entries are accounted for with clarity and authenticity.
2. Source and Nature Explanation : –
Compliance with Section 68 necessitates taxpayer’s ability to furnish a credible and transparent explanation for both the source and nature of sum credited. This requirement serves as a foundational principle, ensuring that financial transactions are not only legitimate but also thoroughly documented.
Source Explanation:
Source explanation demands clarity on the origin of the credited sum. Assessee must provide detailed account of where funds originated, be it a loan, gift, or share capital and in any other ledger. This involves presenting documentary evidence, financial records, and any other relevant information that establishes the legitimacy of the source.
Nature Explanation:
Equally crucial is explaining the nature, which delves into purpose and characteristics of the transaction. Taxpayers must not only identify source of the funds but also provide comprehensive narrative regarding nature of transaction which should align with documentary evidence presented, creating a cohesive and transparent account.
In essence, the source and nature explanation is not merely a legal requirement but a cornerstone of financial transparency. It goes beyond fulfilling statutory obligations, aiming to ensure that financial transactions are not shrouded in ambiguity. Providing comprehensive and transparent explanation for both the source and nature of credited sums is essential for taxpayers navigating the intricate landscape of Section 68.
Documentation Requirements :
To navigate Section 68 successfully, meticulous documentation is crucial.
Comprehensive Record-Keeping :
Maintaining a comprehensive record of financial transactions is the first line of defense. This includes documentation related to the source of funds, the nature of the transaction, and any agreements or contracts associated with the credit.
Importance of Paper Trail:
Clear and complete paper trail substantiates legitimacy of the transaction. It serves as tangible evidence that can be presented to tax authorities to support the taxpayer’s explanation.
Common Scenarios and Challenges :
Let us explore common scenarios and challenges associated with Section 68 helps taxpayers anticipate issues and adopt proactive measures.
Loan Transactions:
Unexplained loans often fall under scrutiny. Ensuring proper documentation, including loan agreements, interest calculations, and repayment schedules, is essential.
Gift Transactions:
Gift transactions can pose challenges. Taxpayers need to establish the relationship between the parties, the intention behind the gift, and comply with relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act.
Judicial Precedents:
Understanding the judicial precedents related to Section 68 provides valuable insights into the practical application and interpretation of this provision.
Landmark Cases:
Over the years, several landmark cases have shaped the understanding of Section 68. Analyzing these cases can offer clarity on how courts have interpreted provision in different contexts. Cases often revolve around adequacy of explanations, the standard of proof, and the role of circumstantial evidence.
Rajshree Realtors (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [2023] 153 taxmann.com 340 (Bombay) dated 10.07.2023
The case pertains to the reopening of assessment under Section 68, read with Section 148, of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer initiated the reopening, citing information received from the Deputy Commissioner following a search and seizure operation at the premises of an individual (‘A’). ‘A’ had allegedly confessed to orchestrating the registration of numerous paper companies, including SCPL and SHPL, which purportedly provided accommodation entries. The assessee company was identified as one of the beneficiaries, accused of receiving bogus share capital/premium from these paper companies.
However, the grounds for reopening were contested, as the notice did not specify the material that the assessee was obligated to disclose truly and fully, and which it purportedly failed to disclose. The assessee had previously presented shareholding agreements with SHPL and SCPL, which were examined by the Assessing Officer. Despite the Assessing Officer’s rejection of the explanation, the Commissioner (Appeals) overturned the addition of Rs. 3 crores to the assessee’s income. The Commissioner’s decision was subsequently upheld by the Tribunal.
The crux of the matter rested on whether there was a failure on the part of the assessee to truly and fully disclose material facts. The argument emphasized that, even assuming the entries were bogus or accommodation entries, there was no evidence to suggest that the assessee was aware of the dubious nature of the share capital/premium from SHPL and SCPL.
In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, asserting that the notice issued under Section 148 and the subsequent assessment order should be quashed and set aside. The decision was based on the absence of evidence indicating the assessee’s awareness of the alleged illegitimacy of the transactions, thus affirming that there was no failure to disclose material facts.
The assessee-company received share application money from nineteen companies, and the Assessing Officer claimed that these companies were ‘shell’ companies lacking the financial strength to invest money in the immediate previous relevant financial year. Consequently, the Assessing Officer added the share application money as undisclosed income in the hands of the assessee. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) increased the tax liability by a certain amount.
However, the Tribunal, on further appeal, deleted the entire addition. The undisputed facts revealed that the revenue had issued notices to all nineteen companies, and they had appeared before the Assistant Director of Income Tax (Asstt. DIT), submitting their papers. In the case of one company (MIIPL), the revenue had already made an addition. The Tribunal scrutinized each investment individually, noting that the replies and documents from the companies were available in the records.
The Tribunal observed that once an addition is made in the hands of the investor company, a subsequent addition cannot be made in the hands of the investee company. It particularly highlighted the case of MIIPL, where the directors were common with the assessee-company, and the addition was already made in MIIPL’s assessment due to its lack of income in specific assessment years.
In conclusion, the Tribunal determined that the additions made by the revenue were not sustainable. The identity of the investors was established, and they had submitted records demonstrating the source of income. The Tribunal’s decision rested on the principle that, in the given facts of the case, the revenue’s additions lacked a valid basis.
The case revolves around the assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 2011-12, which was completed before a subsequent search at the assessee’s premises. The Assessing Officer, in pursuance of the search, passed an assessment order under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A(1)(b). In this order, additions were made under Section 68 for alleged bogus long-term capital gain, and additional additions under Section 69C were made for expenses related to the alleged bogus long-term capital gain.
On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the additions, stating that no incriminating material was found during the search at the assessee’s premises. The Tribunal, on further appeal, upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)’s decision.
The central argument was that in the absence of any incriminating material, the Assessing Officer lacks jurisdiction to make additions to a completed or unabated assessment. The Tribunal, in its decision, affirmed that no addition could be made in the absence of incriminating material, and the case of a completed assessment does not permit the Assessing Officer to reopen it without such material.
The Tribunal’s conclusion was that the issue of additions made in the assessment order lacked incriminating material, and, therefore, the relief granted to the assessee was justified. The appeal was dismissed, emphasizing that no substantial question of law arose in this context.
Case Review:
The decision of the ITAT Ahmedabad Bench in Income-tax (SS) Appeal No. 464 of 2019, dated 8-6-2022 (para 6) was affirmed. The Tribunal relied on precedent cases, including Pr. CIT v. Saumya Construction (P.) Ltd. [2017] 81 taxmann.com 292/[2016] 387 ITR 529 (Guj.); CIT v. Kabul Chawla [2015] 61 taxmann.com 412/234 Taxman 100/[2016] 380 ITR 573 (Delhi) (Para 5) and Pr. CIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. [2023] 149 taxmann.com 399 (SC) (para 6). These cases supported the view that additions to a completed assessment require incriminating material, and without it, the Assessing Officer’s jurisdiction is constrained.
Significance of Precedents:
The decisions in these cases set precedents that influence future judgments. They contribute to the evolving jurisprudence surrounding unexplained cash credits, providing a framework for assessing the legitimacy of transactions and the sufficiency of explanations.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, Section 68 of the Income Tax Act in India stands as a crucial mechanism aimed at maintaining transparency and legitimacy in financial transactions. This provision, focusing on unexplained cash credits, places the responsibility squarely on the taxpayer to provide a clear and satisfactory explanation for the source and nature of credited sums. Its broad applicability spans individuals, Hindu Undivided Families (HUFs), companies, and various entities, ensuring a uniform approach to scrutinizing financial records. The legal framework, backed by judicial precedents, underscores the significance of robust documentation, comprehensive record-keeping, and due diligence. As taxpayers navigate through loan transactions, gift scenarios, and other potential challenges, adherence to tips for compliance, such as maintaining open communication with tax authorities and seeking professional advice, becomes paramount. In essence, a nuanced understanding of Section 68, coupled with proactive measures and adherence to legal principles, empowers taxpayers to navigate the complexities of unexplained cash credits effectively, fostering both tax compliance and financial integrity.
*****
Disclaimer: This article is not served as professional advice. You may not rely on the opinion expressed in this article to make a business or regulatory compliance-related decision. If you are looking for professional advice, please consult a professional. Any comments and/or suggestions concerning this article may be sent to [email protected] and + 91 8000777854.
Author Bio
