2011 (7) TMI 1133 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition of Rs. 35,00,000/- made on account of share application money u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Deletion of addition of Rs. 87,500/- made on account of commission.

Summary:

Issue 1: Deletion of Addition of Rs. 35,00,000/- u/s 68

The Assessing Officer (AO) added Rs. 35 lakhs u/s 68 of the IT Act during assessment framed u/s 147/144, citing the assessee's failure to prove the identity, creditworthiness of parties, and genuineness of transactions. The assessee provided documents to the CIT(A), who obtained a Remand Report from the AO. The CIT(A) referenced the case of CIT vs. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd., where it was held that if share application money is received from alleged bogus shareholders whose names are given to the AO, the Department can reopen their individual assessments but cannot treat it as the assessee's undisclosed income. The CIT(A) found that the assessee had provided PAN and other documents proving the identity and genuineness of the transactions. The AO did not conduct further inquiries to prove the transactions were bogus. Consequently, the CIT(A) directed the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 35,00,000/-.

Issue 2: Deletion of Addition of Rs. 87,500/- on Account of Commission

The CIT(A) held that since the addition of Rs. 35 lakhs was deleted, the related commission addition of Rs. 87,500/- also stands canceled. The Revenue appealed against this order.

Tribunal's Decision:

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, noting that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing necessary documents, including PAN, bank details, and confirmations of investors. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT Vs. Lovely Exports and the Delhi High Court's decisions in cases like C.I.T. v Gourdin Herbals India Ltd. and C.I.T. vs. Dwarkadish Investment P Ltd., which emphasized that once the identity and genuineness of the investors are established, the burden shifts to the Revenue. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

Assessee's Cross Objection:

The assessee's cross-objection against the reopening of the case was deemed infructuous as the main issue was decided in favor of the assessee. Thus, the cross-objection was dismissed.

Decision:

The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, and the cross-objection by the assessee was also dismissed. The decision was pronounced in the open Court on 22nd July, 2011.