9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs. 25,00,000 as undisclosed income in the hands of the company under section 68 of the Income-tax Act. 2. Addition of Rs. 12,50,000 each in the hands of the two promoters as undisclosed income. 3. Claim of set-off of losses declared by the promoters in the block period. Detailed Analysis: 1. Addition of Rs. 25,00,000 as Undisclosed Income in the Hands of the Company: The core issue revolves around the investment made in the assessee-company under the Promoters' quota by associates, friends, relatives, and employees of the promoters. The Assessing Officer added Rs. 25,00,000 as undisclosed income under section 68 of the Income-tax Act. The assessee argued that the Assessing Officer hastily concluded that the share money contributed by 34 investors represented undisclosed income, despite the assessee providing full particulars, addresses, details of assets, sources of investment, allotment of shares, and confirmation letters. It was also argued that the share application monies were received through crossed cheques or demand drafts and credited to the company's bank account. The Board of Directors scrutinized the share applications and allotted shares accordingly, and all statutory requirements were met. The Tribunal noted that out of 56 investors, only 5 letters were returned unserved, and the assessee filed confirmation letters from 24 shareholders. The jurisdictional High Court in the case of Lanco Industries Ltd. held that unsatisfactory explanation of the source of investment by a shareholder does not permit the amount to be treated as the company's income. The Tribunal concluded that the identity of the shareholders was established, and there was no finding that the shareholders were mere name-lenders or that the money belonged to the directors. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 25,00,000 as undisclosed income in the hands of the company was deleted. 2. Addition of Rs. 12,50,000 Each in the Hands of the Two Promoters: The Assessing Officer added Rs. 12,50,000 each in the hands of the promoters, Sri Ch. Mohan Rao and Sri B. Hanumantha Rao, on the basis that 34 shareholders were benamidars of these promoters. The Tribunal found this addition to be arbitrary and without any specific finding that any particular shareholder was a benamidar of the promoters. The Tribunal referred to the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Prakash Narain v. CIT, which laid down that the burden of proving benami lies on the person alleging it. The Tribunal found no evidence to support the claim that the shareholders were benamidars of the promoters and thus deleted the additions of Rs. 12,50,000 each in the hands of the promoters. 3. Claim of Set-off of Losses Declared by the Promoters: The promoters claimed set-off of losses declared in the block period. The Tribunal referred to the retrospective amendment in section 158BB(1)(c) and noted that the losses in question were for the assessment year 1996-97, and the time for filing the return was still available as on the date of search. The Tribunal held that losses computed with reference to transactions recorded in the regular books of account maintained in the usual course of business cannot be termed as undisclosed and thus cannot be set off against undisclosed income. Therefore, the set-off of losses claimed by the promoters was not allowed. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the company, deleting the addition of Rs. 25,00,000 as undisclosed income. The appeals of the promoters were partly allowed, deleting the additions of Rs. 12,50,000 each as undisclosed income, but the claim for set-off of losses was dismissed.
|
