9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (3) TMI 1373 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 68 on account of commission - assessee failed to discharge its onus to prove the genuineness of the transactions - HELD THAT - In the appellant's case scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) was made on 28.02.2006. In the course of the said proceedings, the details of share application money / share capital were furnished vide its explanation dated 16.11.2005 which are available at pages 40 to 43 of the paper book furnished. Nothing adverse was found. The AO has not verified the details furnished by the assessee and I.T. records of the shareholders/investing companies. These facts were not controverted by the AO. The assessee has discharged its burden of providing basic details which were required for verification to fulfill the conditions viz. identity of the creditor, credit worthiness of the creditor and genuineness of transaction as laid down by higher judicial authorities for examining the issue is u/s. 68. No interference is called for in the well reasoned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) on the deletion of additions in dispute, hence, we uphold the same and dismiss the ground no. 1 raised by the Revenue in its Appeal.
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition of Rs. 40,00,000/- made by the AO under Section 68 of the I.T. Act. 2. Deletion of addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of commission related to the Rs. 40,00,000/-. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Deletion of Addition of Rs. 40,00,000/- under Section 68: The Department filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which deleted the addition of Rs. 40,00,000/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) had added this amount under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to the assessee's failure to prove the genuineness of the transactions. The AO received information from the Investigation Wing indicating that the entities contributing to the share application money were involved in providing accommodation entries. Despite the assessee providing various documents (such as share application forms, board resolutions, PAN cards, and bank statements of the shareholders), the AO deemed the transactions as non-genuine. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, stating that the assessee had discharged its burden by providing basic details required for verification under Section 68. The CIT(A) noted that the AO had not verified the details furnished by the assessee or the I.T. records of the shareholders. The CIT(A) relied on several judicial precedents, including CIT vs. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd., where it was held that the company cannot be expected to know every detail of its subscribers, and if the AO fails to unearth any wrong dealings, the subscribed capital cannot be treated as undisclosed income. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in the deletion of the addition. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee had provided necessary details, and the AO's action was based on information without proper verification, violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal also referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd., which stated that if share application money is received from alleged bogus shareholders, the Department should proceed to reopen their individual assessments rather than treating it as the company's undisclosed income. 2. Deletion of Addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- on Account of Commission: The AO had also added Rs. 1,00,000/- as commission allegedly paid to entry operators for introducing unaccounted money of Rs. 40,00,000/-. The CIT(A) deleted this addition as well, reasoning that since the main addition of Rs. 40,00,000/- was deleted, there was no basis for the commission payment addition. The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A), noting that the deletion of the main addition logically nullified the basis for the commission-related addition. Thus, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of the additions of Rs. 40,00,000/- under Section 68 and Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of commission. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to discharge its burden, and the AO's additions were based on unverified information, violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal relied on judicial precedents to support its decision, emphasizing that the Department should proceed against the individual shareholders if it suspects bogus transactions.
|
