9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (1) TMI 1333 - AT - Income TaxAddition to share capital u/s 68 - unexplained cash credit - HELD THAT - The assessee furnished all such details of the lenders/ depositors. We further find that there is no allegation of assessing officer that any of such lenders/ creditors are part of syndicate of accommodation entry provider. Majority of the investor either in the equity shares or preference shares are made by the group company or by promotor at the face value of the shares. There is no evidence that investment in shares of assessee is a result of some circular transactions. In view of the afforesaid factual discussions, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the finding of the ld CIT(A), which we affirm with our additional observation. In the result, the grounds of the appeal raised by the revenue is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition to share capital under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Examination of the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions related to the share capital. 3. Verification of the source of funds and "source of source" for the share capital. 4. Remand report findings and their impact on the assessment. 5. Treatment of small investments by multiple investors. Detailed Analysis: 1. Deletion of Addition to Share Capital under Section 68: The appeals by the revenue challenged the deletion of Rs. 4,53,66,799/- added to the share capital under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) had treated the share capital as unexplained cash credit due to insufficient details provided by the assessee. 2. Examination of Identity, Creditworthiness, and Genuineness: The assessee, a company engaged in trading equities, shares, and derivatives, had increased its share capital by Rs. 4.53 crores during the assessment year 2015-16. The AO noted that the assessee failed to furnish complete details such as addresses, PANs, and bank statements of the investors, leading to the addition under Section 68. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. 3. Verification of Source of Funds and "Source of Source": The assessee provided extensive documentation, including PANs, income tax returns, audit reports, financial statements, bank statements, and board resolutions to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the investors. The major investors were Sandeep Tandon (Rs. 1.98 crores) and Quant Capital Holdings Pvt. Ltd. (Rs. 25 crores). The CIT(A) noted that the assessee had explained the source of funds and also provided evidence for the "source of source," such as bank statements and financial statements of the entities from which the funds originated. 4. Remand Report Findings: During the appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) forwarded the assessee's submissions to the AO for a remand report. The AO's remand report confirmed that the assessee had furnished bank statements and other relevant documents. However, the AO still doubted the source of funds due to the absence of cash flow analysis. Despite this, the CIT(A) found that the assessee had adequately explained the source of funds and deleted the addition. 5. Treatment of Small Investments by Multiple Investors: The CIT(A) also dealt with small investments of Rs. 20,000 each by five investors. The assessee provided names, addresses, and PANs of these investors. The AO did not conduct any further investigation to disprove the genuineness of these small investments. The CIT(A) held that the assessee had discharged its onus and, in the absence of any incriminating evidence, the genuineness of these transactions should not be doubted. Conclusion: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of Rs. 4.53 crores. The ITAT found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The tribunal also noted that the AO had not brought any adverse evidence against the small investors and had not properly considered the assessee's explanations and supporting documents. Consequently, the appeals by the revenue were dismissed.
|
