9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (8) TMI 899 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s. 68 - unexplained / bogus cash credit and the unaccounted cash paid for obtaining the accommodation entries - Held that - After going through all the evidences produced by the Assessee before the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition in dispute by holding that once the identity, creditworthiness of the share holders and genuineness of the transactions is proved by furnishing all particulars of the share applicants alongwith other documentary evidences, then the Assessee has discharged its onus and there cannot be any addition in the hands of the assessee company in the matter of share application money or share capital. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Deletion of penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Deletion of Addition Made Under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The Revenue contested the deletion of ?70,00,000 added as unexplained cash credit and ?70,000 added as unaccounted cash paid for obtaining accommodation entries under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated reassessment proceedings based on information regarding accommodation entries and added the disputed amounts to the assessee's income due to the failure to furnish confirmations, bank statements, and income tax returns of concerned parties. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] allowed the appeal, deleting the additions. The CIT(A) admitted additional evidence under Rule 46A, which included share application forms, minutes of resolutions, affidavits, confirmations, balance sheets, and bank statements. These documents were sent to the AO for verification, but the AO did not comment on their merits. The CIT(A) held that the assessee had discharged its onus by proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The CIT(A) relied on various judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. and the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT vs. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd., which state that once the identity of the shareholders is established, no further addition can be made under Section 68. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the CIT(A)'s order, noting that the AO did not utilize his powers under Sections 131 and 133(6) to verify the genuineness of the transactions. The ITAT agreed with the CIT(A) that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, and the AO's failure to disprove the evidence warranted the deletion of the additions. The ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming that the CIT(A) had passed a well-reasoned order. 2. Deletion of Penalty Levied Under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The Revenue also appealed against the deletion of a penalty of ?25,23,990 levied under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The penalty was based on the same additions of ?70,00,000 and ?70,000, which were treated as unexplained income and commission, respectively. The CIT(A) deleted the penalty, reasoning that since the additions were deleted in the quantum appeal, the basis for the penalty no longer existed. The ITAT concurred with the CIT(A), stating that the deletion of the quantum additions automatically nullified the penalty. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the Revenue's appeal and affirming that the penalty could not be sustained without the underlying additions. Conclusion: The ITAT dismissed both appeals filed by the Revenue, upholding the CIT(A)'s orders that deleted the additions under Section 68 and the penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The ITAT found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to discharge its onus, and the AO's failure to verify the evidence or provide contrary evidence justified the deletions. The ITAT's decision was based on established judicial principles regarding the burden of proof and the treatment of share application money under Section 68.
|
