2018 (7) TMI 2045 - HC - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 - unexplained investment made by the shareholders - ITAT deleted the addition - HELD THAT - The statement dated 9th September, 2010 made by Kamlesh Jain does not in any manner, state that the investment made in the respondent-assessee Company was an investment which he did not want to make. So far as the shares allegedly/supposedly being taken by the members of the family of the Director of the respondent is concerned, the statement made by Mr. Jain dated 9th September, 2010 is not with regard to the respondent, Company but in respect of its sister company. Thus, there is no conclusive evidence in support of the above submission in the context of the respondent. In any case, this would not necessarily lead to a conclusion that the original investment made by the shareholder in the respondent-assessee was not genuine. This, at the highest, may give rise to suspicion but it does not prove that the investment made originally in the respondentassessee's Company was not genuine. Thus, not in the nature of cash credit as alleged by the Revenue. The impugned order of the Tribunal, on examination of facts, has come to the conclusion that the investment made by the shareholders is not hit by Section 68. It records, that the entire basis of the Revenue's case is based on surmise that the respondent was taking bogus purchase bills and cash was introduced in the form of share capital without any evidence in support. - Decided in favour of assessee Bogus purchases - Addition of 5% of cash purchases as profit by way of discount - as alleged assessee had failed to furnish supporting evidence to prove the identity of the party and genuineness of such purchases - ITAT deleted the addition - HELD THAT - Contention of the Revenue that, when purchases have been made in cash, the respondent would have necessarily received a discount on the price from the seller of the goods is not supported by any material on record. It proceeds, as held by the impugned order of the Tribunal, purely on the basis of surmise that the cash purchases would necessarily involve a discount which has been offered to and availed of, by the respondent-assessee. This submission is not backed by any cogent or demonstrative evidence. The view taken by the Tribunal on this issue is an entirely possible view on the facts and calls for no interference. - Decided in favour of assessee Addition of 2% as unexplained expenses by way of commission/service charges paid for arranging accommodation bills - Tribunal deleted the addition - HELD THAT - There is no challenge to the impugned order of the Tribunal holding that the additions on account of bogus purchases is not sustainable. In such a case, there is no reason why the 2% commission would have been allegedly paid on accommodation bills. Thus, there is no unexplained expenditure as even according to the Revenue, before us, there are no bogus purchases. View taken by the Tribunal in the present facts is a possible view - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the impugned order dated 17th April, 2015 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
2. Deletion of additions made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
3. Deletion of addition of 5% of cash purchases as profit.
4. Deletion of addition of 2% as unexplained expenses for arranging accommodation bills.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Challenge to the impugned order
The High Court heard appeals challenging the common impugned order by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for Assessment Years 2005-06 to 2011-12. The Revenue raised questions regarding the deletion of additions made under Section 68 of the Act, cash purchases profit, and unexplained expenses for accommodation bills.

Issue 2: Deletion of additions under Section 68
The Revenue contested the deletion of additions under Section 68, arguing that the assessee failed to substantiate the genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of shareholders. The High Court noted that shareholders provided PAN numbers, affidavits, and bank account details, meeting the identity and creditworthiness requirements. The court referenced precedents and concluded that the burden of proof was met by the assessee, dismissing the Revenue's objections.

Issue 3: Deletion of 5% cash purchases profit
The Revenue claimed that cash purchases should include a discount, which the Tribunal refuted based on lack of evidence. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the Revenue's argument lacked supporting material and was based on speculation rather than facts.

Issue 4: Deletion of 2% unexplained expenses
The Assessing Officer added 2% commission for accommodation bills as unexplained expenses. However, since the Tribunal had already ruled out bogus purchases, the High Court found no basis for the commission. As there were no bogus purchases, the commission was deemed explained, leading to the dismissal of this issue.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed all five appeals, emphasizing that the Tribunal's decisions were based on reasonable views and lacked substantial legal questions.