9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 1684 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 68 - unsecured cash credit - HELD THAT - Identity is not in dispute and in its books of account sufficient fund has been reflected. The bank statement also established its credit worthiness. The CIT(A) has relied upon number of cases mentioned in his order and arrived at this conclusion that the assessee has proved the identity, genuineness and credit worthiness of transaction, therefore, no addition can be raised hence allowed the claim of the assessee. The facts are not distinguishable at this stage also. There is no finding of any authority on record in which it has been held that M/s. Basant Marketing Pvt. Ltd. is not genuine company. The Department nowhere preferred the appeal against the judgment mentioned in the finding nor perverse finding is on record. Taking into account all the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the CIT(A) has decided the matter of controversy judiciously and correctly which is not liable to be interfere with at this appellate stage. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee against the revenue. Addition made by AO in respect of unproved creditors i,e Butterfly Properties Pvt. Ltd., Indigo Edutainment Pvt. Ltd., K.K. Fintrade, P. Sharma (Infra Infotech) and Database Software Technology Pvt. Ltd. - HELD THAT - identity, credit-worthiness, genuineness has been proved by assessee by furnishing confirmations, PAN numbers etc. and other documents accordingly discussed by the CIT(A) in his order. The claim of the assessee has allowed. The facts are not distinguishable at this stage also. No new evidence has been produced. Taking into account, all the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the CIT(A) has decided the issue judiciously and correctly which is not liable to be interfere with at this appellate stage. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee against the revenue. Addition on account of unproved share application - HELD THAT - Addition in sum of ₹ 20,00,000/- has been raised in the A.Y. 2007-08, therefore, there is no need to raise the addition in current year being the same would be tantamount the double taxation. Accordingly the facts are not distinguishable at this stage also. Nothing new evidence has been produced so taking into account all the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the CIT(A) has decided the matter of controversy judiciously and correctly which is not liable to be interfere with at this appellate stage. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee against the revenue. Addition u/s 14A - HELD THAT - Assessee did not earn any exempt income so no disallowance u/s 14A of the Act can be made. Only investment nowhere require the application of the provision u/s 14 A read with rule 8D.The facts are not distinguishable at this stage also. In view of the said circumstances, we are of the view that the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition in sum of ₹ 10,000/- in view of the provisions u/s 14A of the Act. This issue has been decided by the CIT(A) judiciously and correctly which is not liable to be interfere with at this appellate stage. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee against the revenue. Addition u/s 41(1) - HELD THAT - Unpaid liability cannot be added to the assessee s income by the AO u/s 41(1) of the Act merely on the ground that the same was unpaid for sufficiently long time. The entries have also been reflected in the books of account of the creditors. The assessee also proved the identity, creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transaction by producing the sufficient evidence on record. We found no illegality and irregularity in the finding of the CIT(A) because there is no distinguishable fact on record. No new evidence has been placed on record. We are of the view that the CIT(A) has decided the matter of controversy judiciously and correctly which is not liable to be interfere with at this appellate stage. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee against the revenue. Addition on account of share application money - HELD THAT - Relevant documents were also produced on record. The AO raised the addition merely on the basis of the documents tendered by CBI/ACB investigation. The CIT(A) has after examining the relevant record arrived at this conclusion that the identity has been proved and genuineness of transaction has been proved and creditworthiness is also on record. Applying the same ratio of finding which has applied by the CIT(A) while deciding the issue no. 1, the claim of the assessee has been allowed. No doubt this issue has not been described and discussed but CIT(A) has mentioned the principle which he had already applied while deciding the issue no. 1. The relevant record and remand report etc has been considered. Nothing new evidence came into notice to which it can be assumed that the finding of the CIT(A) is perverse. Finding no distinguishable material to interfere with the finding of CIT(A) we affirm the finding of the CIT(A) on this issue at this appellate stage. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee against the revenue. Addition being loss on share trading on sale of shares - HELD THAT - AO admits that debit note containing the details of the certificate number, distinctive numbers of the shares as also acknowledgement of shares having been received by the concerned buyer are on record. These shares were part of the stock in trade of the appellant company. The loss arriving to the appellant on account of the transaction has rightly accrued to it and the AO has brought no finding on record to dispute that. After the examining the record when the AO found genuineness of the transaction and accordingly submitted the report before the CIT(A), therefore, undoubtedly, the CIT(A) has rightly allowed the claim of the assessee. The facts are not distinguishable at this stage also. Hence, we are of the view that the CIT(A) has decided the matter of controversy judiciously and correctly which is not liable to be interfere with at this appellate stage. Accordingly, we decide this issue in favour of the assessee against the revenue. Addition u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - HELD THAT - Assessee did not earn any exempt income so no disallowance u/s 14A of the Act read with rule 8D can be made. The facts are not distinguishable at this stage also. The assessee did not earn any exempt income. In view of the said circumstances, we are of the view that the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition in sum of ₹ 10,000/-raised in view of section 14A read with rule 8D. This issue has been decided by the CIT(A) judiciously and correctly which is not liable to be interfere with at this appellate stage. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee against the revenue. Unproved credits - HELD THAT - we noticed the matter of controversy has been adjudicated by the CIT(A) on the basis of the finding for the A.Y. 2006-07 to 2008-09 in which it has been established that the identity, genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of the creditors has been duly proved. Merely the transaction is very old, cannot be the base of the addition. Moreover, the remand report substantiated the claim of the assessee also. The facts are not distinguishable at this stage and finding no justifiable ground to be interfere with at this stage, we decide this issue in favour of Assessee. Addition u/s 68 - HELD THAT - Credit balance of ₹ 30,000/- in respect of M/s. Basant Marketing P. Ltd. and credit balance in sum of ₹ 14,90,700/- with the name of M/s. Consultshah Financial Services P. Ltd were discussed by the AO as non genuine. The appellant filed the confirmation of M/s. CFSPL, audited report, auditors balance-sheet, ITR etc. The assessee initially discharged the onus, therefore, the finding no application of the provision u/s 68 of the Act, the CIT(A) has deleted the said addition. The facts are not distinguishable at this stage also. Therefore, we found no illegality and infirmity in the order passed by the CIT(A) in question. Accordingly, we decide this issue in favour of the assessee against the revenue Addition on account of non-examination of the claim - HELD THAT - In the instant case also matter relates to the dividend income on stock of shares held by the assessee. Therefore, in the said circumstances, we are of the view that the matter of controversy is required to be adjudicated on the basis of finding of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd Vs. CIT 2018 (3) TMI 805 - SUPREME COURT . Hence, we set aside the finding of the CIT(A) on this issue and restored the matter before the AO to decide the matter of controversy afresh by giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with law. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the revenue against the assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition on account of unsecured loan under Section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. Deletion of addition on account of unproved creditors. 3. Deletion of addition on account of unproved share application money. 4. Deletion of addition under Section 14A of the I.T. Act, 1961. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: Issue No. 1: Deletion of Addition on Account of Unsecured Loan under Section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 The Revenue challenged the deletion of the addition of ?1,70,37,750/- made by the AO under Section 68. The assessee showed an unsecured loan from Basant Marketing Pvt. Ltd. The AO added the amount based on a letter from DCIT, Central Circle-XXVIII, Kolkata, alleging the company was providing accommodation entries. The CIT(A) found that Basant Marketing Pvt. Ltd. was a genuine company with established identity and creditworthiness, supported by various judicial precedents. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting no contrary evidence was provided by the Revenue. Issue No. 2: Deletion of Addition on Account of Unproved Creditors The Revenue contested the deletion of ?1,07,77,000/- added by the AO for unproved creditors. The AO based the addition on intimation from DCIT, Kolkata, and CBI reports. The CIT(A) noted that the credits were carried forward and confirmed by the creditors, with no remission or waiver. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), finding no new evidence from the Revenue to dispute the genuineness of the creditors. Issue No. 3: Deletion of Addition on Account of Unproved Share Application Money The Revenue challenged the deletion of ?20,00,000/- added by the AO for unproved share application money. The CIT(A) observed that the addition was also made in the subsequent assessment year, leading to double taxation. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting the addition in the current year would result in double taxation. Issue No. 4: Deletion of Addition under Section 14A of the I.T. Act, 1961 The Revenue contested the deletion of ?10,000/- added by the AO under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. The AO made the addition based on investments to earn exempt income. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting the assessee did not earn any exempt income during the relevant year. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, citing judicial precedents that disallowance under Section 14A cannot be made if no exempt income is earned. Separate Judgments: ITA No. 1499/M/2017: The Revenue challenged the deletion of ?29,55,500/- for unproved creditors, ?20,00,000/- for unproved share application money, ?26,00,000/- for loss on share trading, and ?10,000/- under Section 14A. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions, noting the assessee provided sufficient evidence for the creditors and share application money, and the loss on share trading was genuine. The deletion under Section 14A was upheld as no exempt income was earned. ITA No. 1500/M/2017: The Revenue contested the deletion of ?1,11,85,000/- for unproved credits and ?26,409/- under Section 14A. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions, noting the assessee proved the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the credits, and no exempt income was earned. ITA No. 1501/M/2017: The Revenue challenged the deletion of ?10,00,00,000/- for unsecured loans, ?15,20,700/- for unproved creditors, ?10,32,138/- for unproved credit balances, and ?4,50,000/- under Section 14A. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions on the first three issues, noting the assessee provided sufficient evidence. However, the Tribunal set aside the deletion under Section 14A and remanded the matter to the AO for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT. Conclusion: The appeals ITA Nos. 1498 to 1500/M/2017 were dismissed, and ITA No. 1501/M/2017 was partly allowed with a remand on the Section 14A issue.
|
