2012 (12) TMI 25 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 - share application money - amount transferred from outstanding balances of particular creditors - CIT(A) deleted addition holding that the identity, credit worthiness and genuineness of the transaction is explained - Revenue contesting order of CIT(A) on ground that confirmation of creditors has not been submitted - Held that - Appeal is remanded to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to examine the alleged sundry creditor and the nature of such credits and then decide in accordance with law.

Summary

Issues:
Identification of credit worthiness and genuineness of transaction under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the identification of credit worthiness and genuineness of a transaction amounting to Rs.99 lacs under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue challenged the order of the learned CIT(A) asserting that the confirmation of creditors was not submitted during the assessment proceedings, thus failing to establish the identity, credit worthiness, and genuineness of the transaction. The Revenue contended that the assessment order should be affirmed and the order of the learned CIT(A) reversed.

During the appeal hearing, the Revenue highlighted that the Assessing Officer found discrepancies in the details provided by the assessee regarding share application money. The Revenue argued that the credit worthiness of the shareholders was not proven, and the identity of the majority of shareholders was also not established. On the contrary, the assessee's counsel relied on various legal precedents to support their claim that the addition of the entire capital to the assessee's income was unwarranted. The assessee claimed that the amount in question was transferred from three sundry creditors, and confirmations were submitted to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal analyzed the submissions and evidence presented by both parties. It noted that the creditors did not confirm the transfer of the amount as share application money, as claimed by the assessee. The Tribunal found discrepancies in the balance amounts provided by the assessee and the actual figures from the creditors. It was observed that the alleged creditors did not confirm the transfer of their balance to the share application account, and the entries in the books were made for cosmetic purposes. The Tribunal emphasized that the onus of proving the source of money received lies with the assessee, as established by various legal precedents cited.

In light of the facts and legal principles, the Tribunal remanded the appeal to the Assessing Officer for further examination of the alleged sundry creditors and the nature of the credits. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to decide in accordance with the law, providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard and furnish additional evidence if necessary. The appeal of the Revenue was allowed for statistical purposes, maintaining a neutral stance due to unclear facts and ensuring no prejudice to either party.