2018 (3) TMI 1598 - AT - Income Tax

Assessment u/s 153A - Search and seizure operation u/s 132 - proof of incriminating material found in search - additions made u/s 68 on account of unexplained share capital - Held that - As no documentary evidence regarding the claim that the document was incriminating was found so it cannot be held that assessee has obtained accommodation entries - thus no addition could me made following the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) -III VERSUS KABUL CHAWLA 2015 (9) TMI 80 - DELHI HIGH COURT - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order dated 27.3.2017 in Appeal No 140/15-16 for assessment year 2007-08 regarding addition of unexplained share capital under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax CIT(A)-36, New Delhi, regarding the addition of ?10 lacs under section 68 of the Act on account of unexplained share capital for the assessment year 2007-08.

2. The appellant argued that the documents relied upon by the Assessing Officer (AO) did not establish a connection with the addition of share capital in the appellant's case. The appellant contended that the documents did not belong to them and failed to prove any nexus between the alleged accommodation entries and the additions made.

3. The Department defended the addition by stating that incriminating material was found on seized hard discs during the search, reflecting accommodation entries by the Brahmputra group, justifying the addition.

4. The Tribunal compared the documents relied upon in the present case with those in another case involving a group company of Brahmputra. It found that the documents did not incriminate the appellant and failed to establish any link to the addition of share capital.

5. The Tribunal rejected the Department's arguments, noting that no incriminating material was found during the search related to the appellant. It also dismissed the relevance of a director's statement as incriminating material, citing legal precedents.

6. Relying on the decision in CIT vs. Kabul Chawla, the Tribunal concluded that since no incriminating material was found during the search, the addition of share capital could not be sustained. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the impugned additions.

7. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing the similarity of facts with a previous case involving the Brahmputra group and directing the deletion of the addition made under section 68 of the Act for unexplained share capital.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the appeal, the arguments presented by both parties, the Tribunal's assessment of the evidence, and the legal basis for allowing the appeal and directing the deletion of the addition of unexplained share capital.