2016 (9) TMI 1337 - HC - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 - assessee failed to establish the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the share applicants - Held that - all the share applicants stand identified. The assessee has provided permanent account numbers of the share applicants. The mode of payment has also been explained. There is no direct or indirect relation between the assessee-company and the share applicants. The statements recorded during survey has got no evidentiary value without any supporting documents or evidence. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against Tribunal's decision allowing the assessee's appeal and reversing findings of Commissioner of Income-tax and Assessing Officer.
2. Allegation of receiving bogus share application money and failure to prove identity and creditworthiness of applicants.
3. Questions of law framed regarding Tribunal's decision on addition of ?2.50 crores under section 68 of the Act.
4. Contention regarding examination of companies floated prior to public issue and reliance on Inspector report.
5. Tribunal's observation on identification of share applicants, lack of direct relation with assessee, and legal principles under section 68 of the Act.
6. Reference to Supreme Court decision in CIT v. Lovely Exports P. Ltd.
7. Respondent's reliance on various legal precedents.
8. Reference to Delhi High Court judgment in CIT v. Value Capital Services P. Ltd.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenges the Tribunal's decision favoring the assessee and overturning the findings of the Commissioner of Income-tax and Assessing Officer. The issue revolves around the reversal of the addition of ?2.50 crores made under section 68 of the Act due to alleged receipt of bogus share application money.
2. The case involves the assessee allegedly receiving bogus share application money and failing to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the applicants. The Assessing Officer added the amount to the assessee's income, leading to the dispute.
3. Questions of law were framed questioning the Tribunal's decision on the addition under section 68 of the Act. The Tribunal's justification for deleting the addition despite the failure to prove the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the share applicants was a key point of contention.
4. The appellant contended that companies floated before the public issue were not adequately examined, and there were concerns regarding the reliance on an Inspector report that was not subject to cross-examination.
5. The Tribunal observed that the share applicants were identified, with provided PANs and explanations for the mode of payment. It emphasized the lack of direct or indirect relation between the assessee and the applicants, citing legal principles under section 68 of the Act.
6. Reference was made to the Supreme Court decision in CIT v. Lovely Exports P. Ltd., highlighting the treatment of share application money and the Department's option to reopen individual assessments of alleged bogus shareholders.
7. The respondent relied on various legal precedents to support the Tribunal's decision, indicating the importance of proving the source of investment to attribute it as undisclosed income under section 68 of the Act.
8. The judgment also referenced a Delhi High Court case emphasizing the burden on the Department to demonstrate that investments from share applicants ultimately originated from the assessee's funds to justify additions under section 68 of the Act. Ultimately, the Tribunal's decision was upheld, dismissing the appeal.