2015 (11) TMI 292 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained receipts of share application money - CIT(A) deleted the addition on the ground that the assessee had provided all the necessary details, including confirmation letters, share application forms, ward/circle where the share applicants/investing companies were assessed, and thus have discharged the burden of proof that lay on the assessee also the AO had made enquiries by issuing summons u/s 131 to the share applicants and that all the share applicants have replied to the summons and the AO had recorded statements from some share applicants also - Held that - The assessee had discharged the onus that lay on it u/s 68 of the Act. The A.O. has not brought on record any adverse material to disprove the claim of the assessee. The factual finding of the Ld.CIT(A) could not be controverted by the Ld.D.R. Under these circumstances we uphold the order of the First Appellate Authority and dismiss this ground of the Revenue. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Addition of unexplained receipts of share application money and commission payments.
2. Burden of proof on the assessee regarding creditworthiness of share applicants.
3. Validity of the assessment order and opportunity for cross-examination.
4. Legal position regarding unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.

Issue 1: The Revenue challenged the deletion of additions on account of unexplained receipts of share application money and commission payments. The AO disbelieved the share application money based on information from the Investigation Wing and initiated action under Section 148. The CIT(A) deleted the additions, stating that the assessee provided necessary details and discharged the burden of proof. The AO's enquiries via summons to share applicants did not yield adverse findings, leading to the deletion of additions.

Issue 2: The burden of proof regarding the creditworthiness of share applicants was a crucial aspect. The Revenue argued that the share applicants lacked creditworthiness, as per Investigation Wing findings. However, the CIT(A) found that the assessee had provided essential details, including confirmation letters and banking channels for transactions. Statements from share applicants confirmed the transactions, leading to the deletion of additions.

Issue 3: The validity of the assessment order was questioned due to the lack of opportunity for cross-examination of the alleged entry operator. The AO made additions without providing a chance for cross-examination, which raised concerns about procedural fairness. However, the CIT(A) found that the assessee had fulfilled its obligations by providing necessary details, leading to the deletion of additions.

Issue 4: The legal position under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act was crucial. Citing relevant case law, the Tribunal emphasized that when the assessee provides evidence supporting share application monies, the burden shifts to the AO to disprove the claim. In this case, the AO failed to present adverse material to refute the assessee's claim, leading to the deletion of additions under Section 68.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the Revenue's appeal and deleting the additions. The legal position regarding unexplained cash credits under Section 68 was clarified, emphasizing the importance of the burden of proof and the need for the AO to conduct meaningful enquiries before making additions.