2014 (5) TMI 892 - HC - Income Tax

Disallowance of addition u/s 68 of the Act Unexplained share capital invested in company Held that - Following CIT Vs. Lovely Exports Private Limited 2008 (1) TMI 575 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - if the department is having any doubt in the matter of investment of share application money or share capitals subscribed by various persons alleged to be bogus by the Department then it is for the Department to reopen their case and take action - once the assessee has discharged the burden of indicating as to the source from where, the share amount has been received - the appellate authority and the tribunal have not committed any error in rejecting the contention of the revenue no substantial question of law arises for consideration Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act challenging disallowance of addition of Rs. 57 Lacs as unexplained share capital.

Analysis:
The appellant challenged the concurrent orders of the Commissioner, Appeals, and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the disallowance of an addition of Rs. 57 Lacs as unexplained share capital invested in the respondent company under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The company had disclosed details of investments received as share capital, including investor names, addresses, investment amounts, cheque particulars, and bank details. The Assessing Officer added the amount to the company's income, citing lack of established sources of the investors. However, the Commissioner found that mere presumptions and assumptions were insufficient to justify the addition, emphasizing that if the investor failed to explain the source of the invested amount, it should be added to the investor's income. The Tribunal upheld the appellate authority's decision, citing legal principles from various cases, including the Supreme Court's ruling in CIT Vs. Lovely Exports Private Limited, emphasizing the department's responsibility to reopen cases if doubts exist regarding share capital investments.

The appellant argued that the tribunal and appellate authority erred in disallowing the addition, claiming it was a perverse finding. The appellant cited a judgment from the Delhi High Court in support. However, the High Court, after considering the Supreme Court's decision in Lovely Exports Private Limited, reiterated the principle that if a company provides investor details to the Assessing Officer, the department can reopen individual assessments if doubts persist regarding share capital. The court concluded that the appellant had sufficiently indicated the source of the share amount received, in line with the law laid down by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the appellate authority and tribunal were deemed not to have erred in rejecting the department's contention. As no substantial question of law arose in the case, the appeal was dismissed.