Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee failed to file a timely income tax return for A.Y. 2018-19. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment under Section 148 due to information about property transactions and subsequently added Rs. 96,03,867/- as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) deleted this entire addition.
Held
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the decision of the CIT(A), confirming that the assessee successfully discharged the onus of proving the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the various cash credits received in the bank account. The CIT(A) had provided detailed factual findings for each transaction, demonstrating that the amounts were either returned, related to prior payments, or were legitimate business transactions with established identity and source through banking channels.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of unexplained cash credits made by the AO under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by accepting the assessee's explanation for the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditors.
Sections Cited
250, 139(1), 139(4), 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), 68
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA & SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR
The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as “NFAC”), Delhi dated 13.09.2024 passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relates to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19.
ITO vs. Manthan Shyam Ganatra] A.Y. 2018-19 - 2 – 2. The facts relating to the case are that the assessee did not file its return of income in the time stipulated u/s 139(1) or section 139(4) of the Act. The Assessing Officer (AO), on the basis of information that the assessee had entered into certain transactions of sale of immovable property, proceeded to conduct necessary inquiry, provided in law, to decide whether it was a fit case of escapement of income so as to assume jurisdiction u/s 148 of the Act for reopening the case of the assessee. According he shared the information in his possession with the assessee seeking his reply to the same, by issuing notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act. No reply being filed by the assessee to the same, he passed order u/s 148A(d) of the Act holding it to be a fit case for issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. Thereafter, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee, in response to which, the assessee filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs. 16,84,843/-. This total income included long term capital gain of 38,20,619/- and short term capital loss of Rs. 21,35,776/-. In response to the query of the AO relating to the business and profession of the assessee, it was submitted that the assessee was an architect and was also partner in a firm named and styled as Shree Real Estate Developers. The AO noted that during the year under consideration the assessee, despite having receipt of Rs. 15,49,531/- from profession, suffered loss under the head Business and profession. In the process of assessment, the AO agreed to the computation of LTCG and STCL and no further addition was made by the AO on the basis of information relating to sale of properties which was the basis of assumption of jurisdiction to reassess the ITO vs. Manthan Shyam Ganatra] A.Y. 2018-19 - 3 – income of the appellant. However, the AO after examining the bank account submitted by the assessee, added all credit entries except credit on account of sale of property and credit on account of professional receipts, as unexplained cash credit of the appellant u/s 68.
2.1 It is worthwhile to go through the reason cited by the AO for proposing such disallowance. At the time of issuing Show cause notice, the following reasoning was given by the AO:
“2.8. The details submitted by the assessee were perused and the same was not acceptable. The assessee has submitted that his family construction business is in loss since A.Y.2016-17 and his individual income is below taxable income and even during the year, the assessee has shown a loss of Rs.7,91,848/-. However, assessee is living a luxury life. He is owning a Mercedes Benz, monthly EMI of the said car is Rs.1,59,063/- and bank has also sanctioned a loan of Rs.32,80,544/- to a person, whose annual income is below taxable income and who does not file an Income Tax Return. All this prove that the assessee is not showing his true income. Assessee is also not able prove the sources, rationale, creditworthiness of all the persons from whom these receipts are received alongwith documentary evidence. The Total Receipts and their source are summaries as under: Total Receipts during the year in Bank A/c No.003010101028012 Rs.1,64,99,585/- Total Receipts during the year in Bank A/c No.916010016133375 Rs. 48,97,106/- Total Receipts in Bank Rs.2,13,96,691/- Rs. 15,49,531/- Less: Gross Professional Receipts Rs.1,98,47,160/- Less: Sale Consideration from sale of immoveable properties: 1. 1ST . Property Rs.39,28,385/- 2. 2ND Property Rs.28,14,908/- 3. 3RD Property Rs.35,00,000/- Rs.1,02,43,293/- Difference in source of Receipt Rs. 96,03,867/- ============= ITO vs. Manthan Shyam Ganatra] A.Y. 2018-19 - 4 – Assessee was not able prove the sources, rationale, creditworthiness of all the persons from whom these receipts are received alongwith documentary evidence. In the absence of the same, a show cause notice was sent to tax the amount of Rs.96,03,867/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act.”
2.2 After the above mentioned show cause notice, the assessee not only availed opportunity of video conferencing to explain the entries in the account, but also made further submissions in his attempt to explain the nature and genuineness of credit entries in his bank accounts. However, the submissions made by the appellant failed to persuade the AO who concluded as follows:
“2.10 …… In nutshell, the assessee has submitted that his family construction business is in loss since A.Y.2016-17 and his individual income is below taxable income and even during the year, the assessee has shown a loss of Rs.7,91,848/- . However, assessee is living a luxury life. He is owning a Mercedes Benz, monthly EMI of the said car is Rs.1,59,063/- and bank has also sanctioned a loan of Rs.32,80,544/- to a person, whose annual income is below taxable income and who does not file an Income Tax Return. There are lots of unsecured loans/incomes/payments which are not related to the business for which income is offered in this Return of Income. The assessee was asked to explain the purpose, need, rationale of all the unsecured loans/incomes/payments alongwith documentary evidence, submit the confirmation from others parties and prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions and other parties. But, the assessee was not able to produce any substantial documentary evidence. All this prove that the assessee is not showing his true income.”
2.3 After concluding as above, the AO went on to add the entire Rs.96,03,867/- as unexplained Cash Credit u/s 68 of the Act. Aggrieved by the decision by the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) who deleted the entire addition made by the AO finding no merit in the same.
Aggrieved by the same, Revenue has come up in appeal before us.
ITO vs. Manthan Shyam Ganatra] A.Y. 2018-19 - 5 – 4. We have noted that the addition of Rs.96,03,867/- made by the AO relates to credit entries reflected in the bank account of the assessee of persons tabulated at para 5.2.1 of the Ld. CIT(A) order as under:
S. Amounts received from Amount of Relation to appellant no. receipts (Rs. ) 1 Imtyaz Desai 23,76,000 The person is husband of purchaser of land 2 Zeb IT Service Pvt Ltd 13,71,236 The person is, online (Crypto currency exchange for transaction Exchange) of crypto currency 3 Shyam R. Ganatra 6,19,000 Father of assessee 4 Hansa S. Ganatra 2,20,500 Mother of assessee 5 Shree Builders 9,53,000 Father’s Proprietorship Firm 6 Shree Real Estate 17,04,563 Partnership Firm in Developers which appellant is partner 7 Varunbhai G. Ganatra 14,15,000 Cousin of appellant 8 Harshraj Yashodharsinh 10,64,300 Friend of appellant Gohil
Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Revenue pertain to addition made u/s.68 of the Act in relation to each of the above as under:
“(a) The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 23,76,000/- made on account of unexplained credit transaction received from Shri Imtiyaz Desai despite the fact that the assessee has only furnished ledger account out of his books. The assessee has not furnished other supporting documents to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the lender. (b) The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 13,71,236/- made on account of unexplained credit transaction received from ZEB IT Service P Ltd (ZISPL) despite the fact that the assessee has only furnished copy of email received from ZISPL in respect of confirmation of payment made to ZEB IT Service P Ltd and has failed to furnish any documents in respect of receipt from ZISPL. (c) The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 9,53,000/- made on account of unexplained credit transaction received from M/s. Shree Builders despite the fact that the assessee has only submitted copy of PAN, copy of ledger confirmation, bank statement to substantiate its claim. The ITO vs. Manthan Shyam Ganatra] A.Y. 2018-19 - 6 – assessee has not furnished other supporting documents to establish the creditworthiness of the lender. (d) The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 9,53,000/- made on account of unexplained credit transaction received from M/s. Shree Builders despite the fact that the assessee has only submitted copy of PAN, copy of ledger confirmation, bank statement to substantiate its claim. The assessee has not furnished other supporting documents to establish the creditworthiness of the lender. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 17,04,563/- made on account of unexplained credit transaction received from M/s. Shree Real Estate Developers despite the fact that the assessee has only submitted copy of ledger confirmation, bank statement to substantiate its claim. The assessee has not furnished other supporting documents to establish the creditworthiness of the lender. (e) The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 10,64,300/- made on account of unexplained credit transaction received from Shri Harshraj Yashodarsinh Gohil despite the fact that the assessee has only submitted copy of PAN, and confirmation ledger to substantiate its claim. The assessee has not furnished other supporting documents to establish the creditworthiness of the lender. (f) The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 14,15,000/- made on account of unexplained credit transaction received from Shri Varunbhai G. Ganatra despite the fact that the assessee has only submitted copy of PAN, ledger confirmation, bank statement to substantiate its claim and on verification of bank account, it is noticed that few cheque entries was credited before transferring fund to the assessee. The assessee has not furnished other supporting documents to establish the creditworthiness of the lender.”
We have heard both the parties. We have gone through the order of the Ld. CIT(A) who has dealt with the facts relating to each party and the documents filed with respect to each party by the assessee and after going through all of them he has held the assessee to have discharged its onus of proving the genuineness of credits received from each party as under:
“5.2.5 I have carefully perused the documents submitted by the appellant during the course of assessment proceedings, the explanation given by him during the course of regular assessment proceedings, the impugned order of assessment and also the submissions made by him during the present proceedings. It is argument of the appellant that he had explained each and every credit entry appearing in his bank account by providing narration to the same. The credit entries on which additions have ITO vs. Manthan Shyam Ganatra] A.Y. 2018-19 - 7 – been made were all received through banking transactions. The appellant had provided identity of the persons giving these credit entries. The appellant claims that he had also given confirmation from all of these persons who have given credit to the appellant at the time of assessment proceedings. However, on going through the records it is apparent that confirmation in respect of only Hansraj Yashodharsinh Gohil was submitted during the assessment proceedings. In respect of Imtiyaz Desai, and Zeb IT Service Pvt. Ltd the appellant, at the time of assessment proceedings, had submitted only an unsigned ledger account. In respect of Zeb IT Service Pvt. Ltd the appellant had also provided e-mail communication with that person. In respect of all other five parties who are family member of the appellant or Proprietorship of the father or partnership firm in which the appellant is a partner, the appellant has not only submitted PAN No and their ledger account but has also submitted their bank account in order to prove the genuineness of the source of the source of the credit entries. The ground of appeal needs to be adjudicated on the basis of these documentary evidences filed by the appellant at the time of assessment proceedings. 5.2.6 Before adjudicating whether the onus of the assessee in respect of each individual entry in his bank account, was discharge or not, it is pertinent to point out that the AO appears to be overwhelmed by the facts that appellant who in the current assessment year was declaring the loss under the head Business and Profession was still living a luxurious life. The AO appears to be particularly overwhelmed by the facts that appellant drove a Mercedes Benz and bank had given loan for purchase the car. Apparently, the AO has missed that total income of any person is computed under different heads of income and sum total of such income after availing set off and deduction constitutes total income of any person. During the year under consideration, the appellant did report total income of Rs. 16,84,843/- which included LTCG of as much as Rs 38,20,619/-. The revenue cannot sit over and decide as to the manner in which any receipt or income is to be utilized by an assessee be it expending on luxury or saving it for posterity. In other words, AO cannot decide as to what life style a particular person need to lead in a given income situation. Similarly, the AO cannot step into the shoes of a banker or any other lender in deciding as to the eligibility of any person for availing any loan. 5.2.7 It is trite that the onus is on the appellant to explain any entry found in his books of accounts for this proposition law has been laid by Hon. Supreme Court In Roshan Di Hatti Vs. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC), wherein it was held that the onus of proving the source of money found to have been received by an assessee is on him, if he disputes, it is not liable to tax, it is for him to show either that the receipt was not income or that if it was, it was exempt from taxation and in the absence of such proof the revenue is entitled to treat it as taxable income. It is found that the appellant had explained in detail each and every entry credited in his bank account. Some of these entries did not even relate to credit. 5.2.8 Entries relating to Zeb IT Service Pvt. Ltd pertain to category which does not qualify to be loan or advance. The appellant had explained to the AO that he was making investment in crypto currency using the facility of this party. The appellant through the ledger account of Zeb IT Service Pvt. Ltd had demonstrated that during the year under consideration he had paid an amount of Rs. 21,33,868/- for purchase of crypto currency. All these payments were made through banking channel and were duly ITO vs. Manthan Shyam Ganatra] A.Y. 2018-19 - 8 – reflected in his bank account as against payment of Rs. 21,33,868/- the assessee has received Rs. 13,71,236/- from said person. This, receipt of Rs. 13,71,236/- was also received through banking channel from Zeb IT Service Pvt. Ltd. The copy of Email submitted by the appellant in respect of these transactions clearly indicates that Zeb IT Service Pvt. Ltd is an exchange for Bitcoin and crypto currencies. These transactions were properly explained and they cannot be termed as loan. Therefore, these credit entries were not only properly explained but were also outside the preview of Section 68 of IT Act. No addition u/s 68 can be made on receipt from Zeb IT Service Pvt. Ltd. 5.2.9 It is admitted by the appellant that his transaction with Mr. Harshraj Yashodharsinh Gohil was a loan. For which the appellant had supplied the PAN of the person and had demonstrated that the same was received from banking channel. For this transaction confirmation was also filed. Therefore, it cannot, without any other evidence to the contrary, be said that the appellant has failed to discharge his primary onus in explaining the cash credit. The AO, without assigning any specific reason to the contrary has committed an error in treating this receipt as unexplained u/s 68. 5.2.10 The appellant explains that credit entries receipt from Imtyaz Desai was towards purchase of property. The same property based upon his instruction was subsequently, transferred in the name of his wife Shobha Desai. The amount received from Imtyaz Desai was refunded to him. In order to prove this the appellant has given the ledger account of Imtyaz Desai. I have also perused the bank accounts of the appellant which reflected that on 29.05.2017 the amount received from Shobha Desai 33,76,000/- on the same day Rs. 39,76,000/- was refunded to Imtyaz Desai which included 23,76,000/- received from him on 17.05.2017. It is worth mentioning that Rs. 10,00,000/- was received from Imtyaz Desai in earlier year. The footprint of the banking transactions and the fact that property was actually transferred in the name of Shobha Desai are not only persuasive but they also corroborate the explanation given by the appellant in respect of the credit entry received from Imtyaz Desai. Mention of PAN and mere fact that transactions were routed through banking channel discharges the onus cast on the assessee in explaining any sale transaction. Therefore, it is decided that the AO had erred in making the addition of Rs. 23,76,000/- u/s 68. In deciding the above I am guided by the decision of ITAT Delhi in the case of ACIT vs Evermore Stockbrokers Pvt. Ltd (supra) wherein, great weight has been assigned on fact of re-payment of amount of advance/loan in considering cash credits. 5.2.11 So far as all other credit entries received from father, mother, proprietorship of father and the partnership firm of which the assessee is the partner, is concerned, the appellant had not only provided PAN of the person but had also demonstrated that all these transactions were through banking channels and had also proven source of source of the fund which credited to the account of the assessee. With father and mother, the assessee has running account. As per the ledger account of father, the appellant has paid more money than he has received from him. More specifically, during the year under consideration the appellant had paid to his father Rs. 29,76,000/- in total and has received only Rs. 6,19,000/- in total. In deciding that credit entries received from these persons, the AO has completely ignored the payment made by the appellant. On perusal of the submission and the documents produced before the AO, it is apparent that the assessee has discharged primary onus cast on him u/s 68. Mere absence of confirmating letter does not mean that the assessee could not prove the ITO vs. Manthan Shyam Ganatra] A.Y. 2018-19 - 9 – creditworthiness of the lender. In CIT vs United commercial and Industrial Company Pvt. Ltd. 187 ITR 596 (CAL.) it was decided by Hon’ble High court that confirmatory letter by themselves are not discharge of the onus cast on the appellant u/s 68. In other words the onus of proving the genuineness of the loan transaction and the creditworthiness of the lender can be proven with help of a number of documents which does not mandatorily include confirmatory letters. In the present appeal it is observed that the appellant has explained the circumstances of income of his father who is builder for 35 years and also of his mother who is a doctor having her independent source of income. Furnishing of a bank account is more convincing proof of creditworthiness of the lender which reflects the source of credit in the account of the lenders as well as clinching evidence of genuineness of the transaction. Therefore, it is decided that credit entries taken from family members and their firms is fully explained so far as the onus is cast upon the appellant u/s 68. Therefore, it is decided that the credit entries. 5.2.12 In terms of the discussion in the preceding paragraphs the addition of Rs. 96,03,867/-made u/s 68 is found to be erroneous and therefore deleted. Ground no. 1 is allowed.”
7. On going through the above, we find that with respect to each party, the Ld. CIT(A) has given a factual finding of the credit received either:
having been returned by the assessee in the same year or having been received on account of an amount earlier paid to the said party or the amount of credit received being in relation to a business transaction and not a pure credit entry received from the said party or the assessee having furnished the documents establishing the identity, genuineness of the creditworthiness of the transaction by furnishing PAN numbers of the creditors, his confirmation copy, ITR copy, bank statement etc.
ITO vs. Manthan Shyam Ganatra] A.Y. 2018-19 - 10 – 8. Taking up first the amount allegedly received from ZEB IT Service P Ltd. (ZISPL) amounting to Rs.13,71,236/- which has been added in the hands of the assessee u/s.68 of the Act by the AO. The Ld. CIT(A), on the basis of documents filed by the assessee, has found this amount to be received by the assessee on account of crypto currency purchased by the assessee earlier from the said party, which party was identified as providing a platform for investments in crypto currency, and the assessee having been found to have invested in the same to the tune of Rs.21,33,868/- from his bank account. The Ld. CIT(A) noted the fact of the assessee having made purchases of Rs.21,33,868/- of crypto currency and having received from sale of the said crypto currency an amount of Rs.13,71,236/- and accordingly, having incurred losses on account of said transaction. The Ld. CIT(A) has recorded a factual finding of the amount of Rs.13,71,236/- received by the assessee from the said party to be not in relation to any loan given to the assessee but on account of exchange of bitcoin and accordingly held the credit entries to be duly explained.
With respect to credits/amount received from Shri Harshraj Yashodarsinh Gohil, the Ld. CIT(A) noted the assessee to have supplied PAN and furnished confirmation of the said party also. The amount, he noted, was received through banking channels.
With respect to credit entries received from Shri Imtiaz Desai, the Ld. CIT(A) has noted the impugned amount was ITO vs. Manthan Shyam Ganatra] A.Y. 2018-19 - 11 – returned within a short period back to the person and the assessee had explained the reason for having received the same from him and returned back to him on account of the fact that he had entered into a transaction for sale of land with the said person, which was subsequently completed with his wife and the initial amount received by him, therefore, of Rs.23,76,000/- was refunded back.
With respect to the other credit entries received from his father, mother, the proprietary concern of his father and the partnership firm, of which the assessee is the partner, the Ld. CIT(A) has recorded the finding of fact that the assessee had furnished PAN numbers of the persons, had proved the source of fund and these transactions were routed through banking channel. With respect to the amount received from his father, the Ld. CIT(A) has noted that the assessee had repaid more than the amount received from him. He has also noted that his father was builder from 35 years and his mother was a Doctor having independent source of income. Both of them, he noted, had furnished their bank accounts from which amounts had been advanced to the assessee.
The above factual findings of the Ld. CIT(A) with respect to each credit entries received by the assessee, based on appreciation of documents filed by the assessee, have remained uncontroverted before us. Ld. DR has also not pointed out any infirmity in the factual findings of the Ld.CIT(A).
ITO vs. Manthan Shyam Ganatra] A.Y. 2018-19 - 12 – 13. In the light of the same, we see no reason to interfere in the order of the Ld. CIT(A), deleting the entire addition made in the hands of the assessee of Rs. 96,03,867/-. All the grounds raised by the Revenue are accordingly dismissed.
In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
This Order pronounced on 03/09/2025 Sd/- Sd/- (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 03/09/2025 S. K. SINHA True Copy आदेश क� �ितिल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 3. 4. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A)- �वभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 5. 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,