9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 2002 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 68 - only objection of the AO is this that the credit-worthiness of the investor is in doubt and this observation of the AO is on this basis alone that the investor has incurred huge losses in calendar years 2003, 2004 and 2006 - HELD THAT - As we have seen that even after reducing the losses incurred in these three years from the income earned by the investor in 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2005, net income of the investor comes to 33,12,256 as against remittance by him of only about 10 Lakhs. Hence in our considered opinion, the addition made by the AO is not justified simply on this basis that since the investor has incurred losses and the assessee has not furnished cash flow statement, there is no creditworthiness of the investor. In our considered opinion, this objection of the AO is not valid for making addition of this huge amount particularly when the investor has remitted money from abroad through proper banking channel and even after adjusting or reducing the losses incurred by investor in three years i.e. 2003, 2004 and 2006 also, the remaining income of four years i.e. 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2005 is more than three times of the remittance received by the present assessee from the investor abroad. Considering these facts, we find no reason to interfere in the order of CIT(A) on this issue. Appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition under Section 68. 2. Validity of reopening the assessment under Section 147. Detailed Analysis: 1. Deletion of Addition under Section 68: The revenue's appeal focused on the deletion of an addition of Rs. 4,06,98,770/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO contended that the assessee failed to establish the creditworthiness of the investor, Mr. Samyak C Veera, who had incurred significant losses in prior years. The AO noted that the investor's net income over six years was insufficient to justify the investment amount. The assessee countered by providing bank statements and Foreign Inward Remittance Certificates (FIRC) showing that the funds were received through proper banking channels. The assessee argued that the AO did not make further inquiries to verify the creditworthiness and relied solely on the investor's past losses. The tribunal considered the rival submissions and noted that the total income reported by the investor during the relevant period was significantly higher than the remittance amount, even after adjusting for losses. The tribunal distinguished the case from the Supreme Court judgment in Pr. CIT Vs. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd., where shares were issued at a high premium without proper verification of the investor's creditworthiness. In the present case, the premium was reasonable, and the identity and genuineness of the transaction were not disputed. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, which had accepted the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the investor based on the provided documents, including US tax returns and bank statements. The tribunal concluded that the AO's objection was not valid and dismissed the revenue's appeal. 2. Validity of Reopening the Assessment under Section 147: The assessee's cross-objection (C.O.) challenged the validity of the reopening of the assessment under Section 147. The assessee argued that the reopening was based on mere suspicion and information from the investigation wing without independent verification by the AO. The tribunal noted that since the issue on merit was decided in favor of the assessee, the challenge to the reopening of the assessment became academic. The tribunal dismissed the assessee's C.O. as infructuous. Conclusion: The tribunal dismissed both the revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition under Section 68, confirming that the assessee had satisfactorily established the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the investor. The tribunal also found no need to address the validity of the reopening of the assessment, given the favorable decision on the merits.
|
