By AJAY R. SINGH Advocate
9. Pr.CIT – vs. Veedhata Tower Pvt. Ltd.
[Income tax Appeal no. 819 of 2015
dated: 17th April , 2018 (Bombay High Court)]. [Affirmed Veedhata
Tower Pvt. Ltd vs. I.T.O-9(3)(3) [ITA No.7070/Mum/2014; Bench : H ; AY: 2010-11 ; Dated: 21st January,
2015 ; Mum. ITAT]
Section 68: Cash credits –
Bogus loan – The proviso to section 68 inserted with effect from 01.04.2013,
does not have retrospective effect – If the AO regards the loan as bogus, he
has to assess the lender but cannot assess as unexplained cash credit
The assessee had obtained a
loan from M/s. Lorraine Finance Pvt. Ltd (LFPL). The A.O. held that the
assessee was unable to establish the genuineness of the loan transaction
received in the name of LFPL nor able to prove the credit worthiness/the real
source of the fund. This led to the addition of the loan as unexplained cash
credit u/s. 68 of the Act.
In appeal, the view of the
A.O. was upheld by the CIT(A).
On further appeal, the
Tribunal while allowing the assessee’s appeal records on facts that, it is undisputed
that the loan was taken from LFPL. It is also undisputed that the lender had
confirmed giving of the loan through loan confirmations, personal appearance
and also attempted to explain the source of its funds. It also records the fact
that the sum of Rs.64.25 lakh had already been returned to LFPL through account
payee cheques and the balance outstanding was Rs.1 crore and 75 lakh. Besides,
it records that the source of source also stands explained by the fact that the
director of the creditor had accepted his giving a loan to the assessee’s
lender.
In view of the above fact, it
is the Revenue’s case that the source of source, the assessee is unable to
explain. The requirement of explaining the source of the source of receipts
came into the statute book by amendment to section 68 of the Act on 1st
April, 2013 i.e. effective from A.Y. 2013-14 onwards. Therefore, during the
subject assessment year, there was no requirement to explain the source of the
source. The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus placed upon
it u/s. 68 of the Act by filing confirmation letters, the Affidavits, the full
address and pan numbers of the creditors. Therefore, the Revenue had all the
details available with it to proceed against the persons whose source of funds
were alleged to be not genuine as held by the Apex Court in CIT vs. Lovely
Exports (P.) Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR (St.) 5 (SC).
Being aggrieved, the
revenue filed an appeal to the High
Court. The grievance of the Revenue is that, even in the absence of the
amendment to section 68 of the Act, it is for the assessee to explain the
source of the source of the funds received by an assessee. It is submitted that
the assessee has not able to explain the source of the funds in the hands of
M/s. LFPL .
The High Court observed that
the Bombay Court in CIT vs. Gangadeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, 394 ITR 680
has held that the proviso to section 68 of the Act has been introduced by the
Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 1st April, 2013 and therefore it would be
effective only from A.Y 2013-14 onwards and not for the earlier assessment
years. In the above decision, reliance was placed upon the decision of the Apex
Court in Lovely Exports (supra) in the context of the pre-amended
section 68 of the Act. In the above case, the Apex Court while dismissing the
Revenue’s Appeal from the Delhi High Court had observed that, where the Revenue
urges that the money has been received from bogus shareholders then it is for
the Revenue to proceed against them in accordance with law. This would not
entitle the Revenue to invoke section 68 of the Act while assessing the
assessee for not explaining the source of its source. In present case the
assessee had discharged the onus which is cast upon it in terms of the
pre-amended section 68 of the Act by filing the necessary confirmation letters
of the creditors, their Affidavits, their full address and their pan. In any
event, the question as proposed in law of the obligation to explain the source
of the source prior to 1st April, 2013, A.Y 2013-14, stands
concluded against the Revenue by the decision of this Court in Gangadeep
Infrastructure (supra). Accordingly, the
revenue appeal is dismissed.
