2017 (1) TMI 1484 - AT - Income Tax

Addition on accommodation entry - Reopening of assessment - where about of concerns - Held that - There was a remand directed by the Commissioner on 17.12.2012 and again on 13.01.2014 is acknowledged in the first part of the Remand Report. Similarly from Paper Book page 236, it is evident that Virdi Travel Pvt. Ltd. confirmed the investment in shares of ₹ 3 lacs by relying upon bank statement reflecting the investment; copy of share certificate received; copy of income tax return filed alongwith balance sheet in support of the said assertion. The fact that this was received and filed is evident from the fact that it was diarised as per stamp of AO, Ward-11, New Delhi stamp dated 27.01.2014. Similar is the position in regard to other two replies received by the AO from Natraj Communication Pvt. Ltd. and V.R. Traders Pvt. Ltd. at Paper Book page 282 and 329. It is seen that the evidences available on record right from assessment stage have not been assailed negatively at any of the stages by the AO nor by the CIT(A) or for that matter even before the ITAT. Qua the other two concerns who did not reply though notice u/s 133(6) was served upon them, it is seen that as per record Lokesh Tools & Trading Pvt. Ltd. who it is claimed had paid ₹ 2,50,000/- vide Instrument No.- 405868 and Suraj Cycle Mart Pvt.Ltd. who also has paid ₹ 2,50,000/- by Instrument No.517394 the record shows that the details of banks; amounts; instruments and dates were all along available on record wherein no further enquiry was considered necessary by the AO. The fact remains that the notices have been served upon these parties. Thus, in a case were 4 out of 6 concerns admittedly reply the two who though do not reply but their evidences remain unassailed per se cannot be the reason for sustaining the addition in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the facts where all details are available notice u/s 133(6) have been served, four have replied thus, if the department still had any further doubts about their existence or genuineness then their presence should have been enforced as the whereabouts of these two concerns were known to the department as notices were served upon these parties at the address given is a fact on record. In the afore-mentioned peculiar facts and circumstances, the request of the Revenue to direct yet another remand does not make any sense. It is seen that when the evidences on record are considered qua the stated business of the assessee, thus find that the addition on merits cannot be sustained. Addition on facts was wrongly made as there is nothing on record justifying the addition except the suspicion of the Revenue which cannot be the basis of either making or sustaining an addition as at best it could have been the basis for making a further enquiry which already stood directed. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues Involved:

1. Validity of the order passed by the CIT(A).
2. Legality of the initiation of proceedings under Section 147 read with Section 148.
3. Validity of the reassessment proceedings and the reasons recorded for the notice under Section 148.
4. Confirmation of the addition of ?20,50,000/- on account of share capital money under Section 68.
5. Rejection of the explanation and evidence provided by the assessee regarding the identity, creditworthiness of the shareholder, and genuineness of the transaction.
6. Addition based on evidence collected without giving the assessee an opportunity to rebut, violating the principle of natural justice.
7. Addition based on statements without allowing cross-examination, violating the principle of natural justice.
8. Rejection of the contention that no adverse inference can be drawn against the assessee when notices under Section 133(6) were replied to directly by the shareholders.

Comprehensive Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the order passed by the CIT(A):

The assessee challenged the correctness of the CIT(A)'s order dated 21.01.2015. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to address the evidence on record and instead directed the AO to further inquire, which led to factual inaccuracies in the order. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) upheld the addition without proper application of mind and based on incorrect facts, such as the claim that notices to investors could not be served, which was contrary to the record.

2. Legality of the initiation of proceedings under Section 147 read with Section 148:

The assessee contended that the initiation of proceedings under Section 147/148 was bad in law as the conditions and procedures prescribed under the statute were not satisfied. The Tribunal observed that the AO reopened the assessment based on information from the Investigation Wing without forming an independent belief. The Tribunal emphasized that the reopening should be based on the AO's independent reasoning, which was not evident in this case.

3. Validity of the reassessment proceedings and the reasons recorded for the notice under Section 148:

The assessee argued that the reasons recorded for the notice under Section 148 were vague and did not show any independent application of mind by the AO. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the AO relied solely on the Investigation Wing's report and did not conduct any independent investigation or form a belief that income had escaped assessment.

4. Confirmation of the addition of ?20,50,000/- on account of share capital money under Section 68:

The AO added ?20,50,000/- to the assessee's income, claiming it was received as accommodation entries from tainted companies. The Tribunal found that the assessee provided detailed evidence, including confirmations, bank statements, share certificates, and income tax returns of the shareholders, which were ignored by the AO. The Tribunal concluded that the addition was made on conjectures and surmises without proper consideration of the evidence.

5. Rejection of the explanation and evidence provided by the assessee regarding the identity, creditworthiness of the shareholder, and genuineness of the transaction:

The Tribunal noted that the AO did not point out any defects in the evidence provided by the assessee. The CIT(A) also failed to properly consider the evidence and instead upheld the addition based on incorrect facts. The Tribunal emphasized that the evidence on record sufficiently proved the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions.

6. Addition based on evidence collected without giving the assessee an opportunity to rebut, violating the principle of natural justice:

The assessee argued that the addition was made based on material collected at the back of the assessee without giving an opportunity to rebut the same. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) and AO did not provide the assessee with an opportunity to address the evidence collected, which violated the principle of natural justice.

7. Addition based on statements without allowing cross-examination, violating the principle of natural justice:

The Tribunal observed that the AO relied on statements from third parties without allowing the assessee to cross-examine them. This was a clear violation of the principle of natural justice, as the assessee was not given a fair opportunity to challenge the evidence against them.

8. Rejection of the contention that no adverse inference can be drawn against the assessee when notices under Section 133(6) were replied to directly by the shareholders:

The Tribunal noted that notices under Section 133(6) were served on all six shareholders, and replies were received from four. The AO did not draw any adverse conclusions from the lack of reply from the other two shareholders. The Tribunal concluded that the evidence on record was sufficient to prove the genuineness of the transactions, and no adverse inference should have been drawn against the assessee.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, directing the deletion of the addition of ?20,50,000/- made by the AO. The Tribunal emphasized that suspicion, however strong, cannot form the basis of making or sustaining an addition, and the evidence on record fully demonstrated the assessee's case. The order was pronounced in the open court on 27th January 2017.

← Previous Next →