2016 (8) TMI 1413 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 - addition made towards share application money - identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction - Held that - All the share applicants are assessed to income tax and had regularly filed their income tax and ROC returns. Hence, the identity of the share applicants was duly proved. All the share applicants had made investments in share capital with the assessee company through account payee cheques from their disclosed bank accounts with sufficient sources which were duly explained. Hence, the genuineness of the transactions was also proved in the instant case. We find that the assessee had even proved the source of source of share applicants in the instant case which are quite evident from the confirmations filed by them before the AO which are forming part of the records and the paper book. The share applicants had duly explained that they had liquidated their existing investments in shares of certain companies for which the proceeds were received by cheques and got deposited in their regular bank account. From the said bank account, account payee cheques were issued to the assessee company towards investment in share capital by them. Hence the source of source for share applicants also is explained in the instant case by the assessee though it is not required to be proved by the assessee as per law. None of the documents pertaining to the share applicants which were filed before the AO were found to be ingenuine or non creditworthy by the AO. We find that the AO had made a wild allegation that these share applicant companies are mere paper companies without bringing any cogent material and evidences on record. - decided in favour of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Justification of CIT(A) in deleting the addition of ?1,23,75,000 towards share application money.
2. Examination of the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of share applicants.
3. Consideration of judicial precedents and their applicability to the case.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Justification of CIT(A) in Deleting the Addition:
The primary issue in this appeal was whether the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of ?1,23,75,000 made by the AO towards share application money. The AO had added this amount to the total income of the assessee, suspecting it to be the assessee's own unaccounted money brought into the books through banking channels in the form of share capital. The AO's findings were based on several observations, including the non-existence of share applicant companies at their given addresses and the nature of transactions in their bank accounts, which suggested that these companies were paper companies. However, the CIT(A) deleted the addition, considering the detailed documents and evidence provided by the assessee, which included the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions.

2. Examination of the Identity, Genuineness, and Creditworthiness of Share Applicants:
The assessee provided comprehensive documentation to prove the legitimacy of the share application money received. This included the names and addresses of the share applicants, their income tax return acknowledgements, audited financial statements, bank statements, certificates of incorporation, confirmations from the share applicants, and details of the source of funds. The CIT(A) accepted these documents as sufficient evidence to establish the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the share applicants. The CIT(A) also noted that the AO did not bring any material evidence to counter the documents provided by the assessee or to prove that the share applicants were fictitious or benamidars.

3. Consideration of Judicial Precedents and Their Applicability:
The CIT(A) and the tribunal relied on several judicial precedents to support their decision. The assessee cited the Supreme Court decision in CIT vs Lovely Exports (P) Ltd, which held that if the share application money is received by the assessee-company from alleged bogus shareholders, whose names are given to the AO, then the department is free to proceed to reopen their individual assessments in accordance with law. The tribunal also considered the decisions of the Calcutta High Court in CIT vs Roseberry Mercantile (P) Ltd and CIT vs Mitul Krishna Kapoor, which supported the assessee's case. The tribunal distinguished the cases cited by the revenue, noting that they were factually different and not applicable to the present case.

Conclusion:
The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in the deletion of the addition of ?1,23,75,000. The tribunal concluded that the assessee had duly discharged its onus by providing sufficient evidence to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share applicants. The tribunal also emphasized that the AO failed to bring any cogent material or evidence to disprove the assessee's claims. Consequently, the appeal of the revenue was dismissed.

← Previous Next →