2012 (10) TMI 811 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained cash credits - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - AO has given notices u/s. 133(6) to these parties, but the notices were received back, since persons were not found in the given address. Since CIT(A) has observed that AO has not brought on record any material to controvert the submissions of the assessee in this regard it is not the case that CIT(A) has himself has done enquiries and found that the assessee s submissions are cogent. Thus, the proper enquiry of the submissions by the assessee has not been done. Shares of 10/- each were said to have been given at a premium of Rs.40/- each for which apparently there is no justification. The company s balance sheet and other particulars have not been furnished before us from where it can be adduced that the companies shares can command so much of premium. CIT(A) has not touched upon this aspect, thus the matter needs to be remitted to the files of the AO, to enable the assessee to furnish cogent evidences to prove the justification of such huge share premium being received by the assessee company - in favour of revenue for statistical purposes.

Issues:
1. Deletion of addition of unexplained cash credits by the Assessing Officer.
2. Failure to establish identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions by the assessee.
3. Discrepancies in the books of the assessee and lack of proof regarding cash credits.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Deletion of addition of unexplained cash credits by the Assessing Officer
The Assessing Officer had added Rs.60,00,000/- as unexplained cash credits, questioning the identity and creditworthiness of the parties involved. However, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) deleted this addition, stating that the assessee had provided necessary details, including confirmation letters, bank statements, ITR acknowledgments, and certificates of incorporation from the new share applicants. The Ld. Commissioner noted that the Assessing Officer failed to dispute the details furnished by the assessee, and mere issuance of notices that were not responded to did not justify treating the share application money as unexplained income under section 68.

Issue 2: Failure to establish identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions by the assessee
The Assessing Officer raised concerns about the identity and creditworthiness of the parties providing cash credits to the assessee, as well as the genuineness of the transactions. The parties in question showed similarities in their operations, all operating from the same bank branch and exhibiting resemblances in providing credits to the assessee. The Assessing Officer concluded that the creditors were non-genuine, and their cash credits were added to the assessee's income. However, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing necessary details, and the Assessing Officer failed to bring any material to dispute the submissions made by the assessee.

Issue 3: Discrepancies in the books of the assessee and lack of proof regarding cash credits
The Assessing Officer highlighted discrepancies in the books of the assessee, particularly concerning the cash credits received from various parties. The parties providing the cash credits were found to have filed returns showing either losses or minimal profits, raising doubts about their creditworthiness. The Assessing Officer concluded that the identity and creditworthiness of the creditors could not be proven by the assessee, leading to the addition of the cash credits to the assessee's income. However, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) emphasized that the Assessing Officer did not provide any material to counter the details furnished by the assessee, and the issue of share premium received by the assessee needed further examination to justify the amounts received.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for reevaluation, emphasizing the need for a proper inquiry into the submissions made by the assessee and the justification for the share premium received. The appeal filed by the Revenue was allowed for statistical purposes.

← Previous Next →