2012 (7) TMI 802 - HC - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 68 - Held that - As the CIT (A) elaborately took into account considerable material furnished by the assessee including income tax returns, balance sheets, ROC particulars and bank account statements it can be concluded that the share application money or the source of the share application money had been satisfactorily explained - the only sentence in ITAT s order mentioning that some shareholders were refunded the amounts initially given by them to the assessee should not be a ground to conclude that the findings recorded by the lower authorities are not on the basis of evidence - in favour of assessee. Charging the interest u/s 234B is mandatory and therefore, this plea of appellant is dismissed and interest u/s 234D cannot be levied as interest under section 234D could not be charged in respect of assessment years falling prior to assessment year 2004-05.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of amount under Section-68 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Admission of additional evidences by CIT (A) and subsequent acceptance of assessee's contentions.
3. Refund of share application money to some shareholders and its impact on Section-68 order.
4. Interpretation of judgments in Lovely Export's case and CIT v. Value Capital Services Pvt. Ltd.
5. Challenge to ITAT's order by Revenue based on refund of amounts to shareholders.
6. Reasonableness of ITAT's decision and grounds for dismissal of the Appeal.

Analysis:

1. The Revenue contested an ITAT order rejecting their Appeal against the CIT (A)'s decision to disallow an amount under Section-68 of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer noted receipt of share application money by the assessee, including from specific entities, leading to the inclusion of the entire amount under Section-68. The CIT (A) admitted additional evidences furnished by the assessee, considering materials like PAN numbers, confirmations, bank statements, balance sheets, and ROC particulars of shareholders. The CIT (A) accepted the contentions, emphasizing the importance of fair tax presentation and the need for evidence to adjudicate appeals on merits.

2. The CIT (A) found the assessee had sufficiently identified and assessed all shareholders, and the primary onus was on the AO to prove otherwise. The CIT (A) directed the AO to delete the addition of the disputed amount, citing relevant case laws and emphasizing the establishment of shareholder identity and creditworthiness. The CIT (A) also deleted an alleged commission amount and dismissed a plea regarding interest under sections 234B and 234D.

3. The ITAT upheld the CIT (A)'s decision, considering judgments in Lovely Export's case and CIT v. Value Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. The Revenue argued that refunds to some shareholders indicated the need for Section-68 order. However, the Court found the CIT (A)'s detailed consideration of materials and explanations provided by the assessee sufficient to explain the source of share application money, dismissing the Revenue's contentions.

4. The Court concluded that the ITAT's decision was not unreasonable to warrant interference under Section 260A, emphasizing the factual nature of the controversy and the adequacy of evidence considered by the lower authorities. The Court dismissed the Appeal, affirming the decisions of the CIT (A) and ITAT regarding the disallowance under Section-68 of the Income Tax Act.