2009 (1) TMI 25 - HC - Income Tax

Share application money assessee has explained the credits and the identity, genuineness and credit worthiness of the subscribers assessee has been able to discharge its onus in respect of the veracity of the transactions - revenue make addition under Section 68 of the Act only if the assessee is unable to explain the credits appearing in its books of accounts - no question of law arise, much less, a substantial question of law has arisen for our consideration - Revenue s appeal fails

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of Rs 71 lakhs received as share application money by the assessee.

Analysis:
1. The sole issue raised in the appeal pertains to the deletion of Rs 71 lakhs received by the assessee as share application money, challenged by the Revenue. The Tribunal sustained the deletion made by the CIT(A) in respect of this amount.

2. The facts of the case reveal that the Assessing Officer initiated an enquiry regarding the increase in the share capital of the assessee, particularly focusing on the Rs 71 lakhs invested by T.T. Finance Ltd. The assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act added this amount under Section 68, alleging that it was the assessee's own unaccounted money routed through T.T. Finance Ltd.

3. The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's appeal, noting that the assessee had provided necessary documentation to establish the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the shareholders. The CIT(A) found that the assessee had met the requirements of Section 68, and there was no evidence to support the Assessing Officer's claim that the money was the assessee's own funds routed through T.T. Finance Ltd.

4. The Revenue appealed the deletion of the addition made by T.T. Finance Ltd to the Tribunal, which upheld the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal emphasized that the money was received through banking channels, and the assessee had proven the identity of the investors, shifting the burden of proof. As the share capital money was received through cheques, there was no evidence to treat it as undisclosed income.

5. The Revenue contended that the Tribunal failed to consider all necessary elements under Section 68 and that T.T. Finance Ltd was a group company with common directors. However, it was acknowledged that the Assessing Officer's observations lacked a proper basis for concluding that the funds were the assessee's own, routed through T.T. Finance Ltd.

6. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the Revenue can only make additions under Section 68 if the credits are unexplained. In this case, the assessee had provided subscription forms, bank statements, and other details establishing the veracity of the transactions. The Court found that the assessee had discharged its onus, citing relevant case law supporting their conclusion.

7. Given the factual findings and the established veracity of the transactions, the Court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.

This detailed analysis highlights the key legal arguments, factual findings, and the reasoning behind the decision to dismiss the Revenue's appeal regarding the deletion of the Rs 71 lakhs share application money received by the assessee.