2016 (1) TMI 1416 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Addition u/s 68 - unexplained cash credits being share application money - HELD THAT - No inquiries were made by the AO on the basis of the information supplied by the assessee we are in agreement with the finding of the CIT(A) that arguments and evidences provided by the assessee to substantiate that the transaction regarding Share Application Money received by' the assessee were genuine transactions and the same were not accommodation entries. We also do not find any evidence collected by the A.O. which could prove otherwise. Accordingly, the AO was not justified in treating the amount of share application money received by the assessee as its undisclosed income. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition made by the AO u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and has passed a well reasoned order on the issue in dispute. - Decided against revenue

Issues Involved:

1. Deletion of addition of Rs. 46,50,000/- made under Section 68 of the I.T. Act on account of unexplained cash credits being share application money.
2. Ignoring the findings of the AO regarding the identity, creditworthiness of creditors, and genuineness of transactions.
3. Ignoring the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nova Promoters and Finlease Pvt. Ltd.
4. Legality of reopening the assessment under Section 147 of the I.T. Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Addition under Section 68:

The Revenue contested the deletion of Rs. 46,50,000/- added under Section 68 of the I.T. Act, arguing that the assessee failed to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share application money. The AO had treated the share application money as accommodation entries based on information from the Directorate of Income Tax (Investigation). The AO issued summons to the parties who provided the share application money, but none appeared. Despite receiving documentary evidence like confirmations, bank statements, and PAN details, the AO disregarded them and made the addition.

The CIT(A) found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the identity and genuineness of the transactions. The CIT(A) noted that the AO did not take further action to enforce the attendance of the summoned parties and did not bring any material to disprove the confirmations. The CIT(A) relied on judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd., which held that no adverse inference could be drawn if the creditor does not appear in response to a summons. The CIT(A) concluded that the AO was not justified in treating the share application money as undisclosed income and deleted the addition.

2. Ignoring AO's Findings:

The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) ignored the AO's findings regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The CIT(A) countered this by stating that the AO did not bring any positive material or evidence to indicate that the share applicants were benamidars or fictitious persons. The CIT(A) emphasized that the assessee had discharged the initial onus of proving the bona fides of the transactions and that the AO failed to make any concrete efforts to verify the facts.

3. Ignoring Delhi High Court Decision:

The Revenue cited the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT vs. Nova Promoters and Finlease Pvt. Ltd. to support its case. However, the CIT(A) distinguished this case on the facts, noting that in Nova Promoters, the inquiries were made based on the information provided by the assessee, whereas in the present case, no such attempts were made by the AO. The CIT(A) concluded that the cited case law was not applicable to the present case.

4. Legality of Reopening under Section 147:

The assessee challenged the legality of the reopening of the assessment under Section 147, arguing that the AO did not refer to any specific adversarial material or describe the exact nature of the transaction in the reasons recorded for reopening. The AO had issued the notice based on vague information from the Directorate of Income Tax (Investigation). The CIT(A) found that the AO had not applied his mind independently and that the reasons for reopening were vague and not based on tangible material.

The CIT(A) relied on judicial precedents, including the Delhi High Court's decision in Pr. CIT vs. G&G Pharma India Ltd., which held that the AO must apply his mind to the materials to have reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment. The CIT(A) concluded that the reopening of the assessment was bad in law and deserved to be quashed.

Conclusion:

The CIT(A) upheld the assessee's challenge to the reopening of the assessment and deleted the addition of Rs. 46,50,000/- made under Section 68. The CIT(A) found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the identity and genuineness of the transactions and that the AO had not brought any material to disprove the confirmations. The CIT(A) distinguished the cited case law and concluded that the reopening of the assessment was not justified. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, agreeing with the CIT(A)'s findings and reasoning.

← Previous Next →