9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (11) TMI 65 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained cash credits u/s 68 Addition in respect of three companies - Creditworthiness of transaction proved by assessee - Held that - The assessee company produced the director of all the three companies and they also produced the necessary evidences i.e. photocopy of their permanent account number and their voter-ID, photocopy of the confirmation for investment in the assessee company, photocopy of confirmation of account, photocopy of acknowledgement of income tax return for the relevant assessment year and photocopy of the bank statement of the company - on what basis the AO has mentioned that from the balance sheet of these companies, the creditworthiness of the share application is not proved, is best known to the AO - CIT(A) rightly arrived at the conclusion that the assessee company has duly discharged the onus of proving the cash credit in its books of account - the assessee has duly established the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor (i.e. share applicant), and the genuineness of the transaction thus, the order of the CIT(A) is upheld Decided against revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for unexplained share application money. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Deletion of Addition under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961: The primary issue in these appeals is the deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, concerning unexplained share application money received by the assessee companies. The amounts involved are Rs. 45,00,000 for M/s Globus Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Rs. 75,00,000 for M/s Globus Colonisers Pvt. Ltd., and Rs. 60,00,000 for M/s Globus Investments Pvt. Ltd. Case of M/s Globus Colonisers Pvt. Ltd.: The assessee received a total share application money of Rs. 2,50,00,000, including a share premium of Rs. 2,37,50,000, from sixteen concerns. The AO asked the assessee to produce the directors of three companies: Arun Finvest Pvt. Ltd., Sri Niwas Leasing & Finance Ltd., and Polo Leasing & Finance Ltd., which contributed Rs. 75,00,000. The assessee could not produce the directors during the original assessment but provided all necessary details, including permanent account numbers. The AO treated the share application money as bogus, referencing a CD from the Investigation Wing indicating these companies were entry providers. Consequently, the AO added Rs. 75,00,000 under Section 68. During the appeal before CIT(A), the assessee produced the directors in remand proceedings, who provided necessary documents such as PAN, voter ID, confirmations of investment, and financial statements. The AO recorded their statements but did not discuss their averments, implying affirmation of the investments. The AO's remand report insisted on confirming the addition due to non-production of directors during the original assessment and doubted the creditworthiness based on balance sheets. However, the CIT(A) found the directors' production during remand proceedings sufficient and examined the balance sheets, confirming the creditworthiness. Case of M/s Globus Investments Pvt. Ltd.: The assessee received Rs. 60,00,000 from three companies: M.V. Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Sri Niwas Leasing & Finance Ltd., and Satwant Singh Sodhi Construction Pvt. Ltd. The AO doubted the creditworthiness of these companies. However, the balance sheets showed substantial share capital and reserves, proving their financial capability to invest. Case of M/s Globus Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd.: The assessee received Rs. 45,00,000 from three companies: S.G.C. Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Sri Niwas Leasing & Finance Ltd., and VPS Valves & Tubes Pvt. Ltd. Similar to the other cases, the balance sheets indicated significant shareholders' funds, disproving the AO's contention about the lack of creditworthiness. Conclusion: The Tribunal found that in all three cases, the assessee companies had duly established the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions with the share applicant companies. The CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions was upheld, as the AO's doubts about the creditworthiness were unfounded based on the financial statements provided. The appeals by the Revenue were dismissed. Decision: The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals of the Revenue, confirming the deletion of additions made under Section 68 by the CIT(A). The decision was pronounced in the open Court on 17.10.2014.
|
