2016 (10) TMI 839 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained share application money - Held that - Assessee had furnished confirmation of only M/s Maneesha Finlease Ltd. With respect to the other two parties i.e. Hilridge Investment Ltd. and Sunny Cost & Forge Ltd., the assessee did not furnish confirmation and PAN etc. of these parties despite a number of opportunities allowed by the Assessing Officer. These details were filed during the appellate proceedings under Rule 46A and remand report was sought from the Assessing Officer. In the remand report the Assessing Officer did not examine these documents and asked the assessee to produce the Principal Officers of these applicants. On this the assessee told the Assessing Officer that they may be called directly, but he never issued any summon u/s. 131. It is of the view that Ld. CIT(A) has rightly observed that the Assessing Officer should have examined the documents and after that if needed should have summoned the share applicants and on this account the Assessee cannot force any one to appear before the AO. Therefore, the assessee has discharged his responsibility in giving the details. In view of this, Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition - Decided in favour of assessee Disallowance towards interest on the ICD - Held that - AO asked the assessee to explain that why this interest should not be disallowed. The assessee submitted the details of ICD, but did not give any explanation and AO observed that as to why it should not be disallowed. But even if it is so, the conclusion is wrong that the assessee has nothing to say in this regard when he has debited it in the profit and loss account. After all the interest on ICD is an allowable expense of the business and the AO asking such a question that why it should not be disallowed, appears to be out of the way. Also further find force in the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) that it is for the AO to prove that any expenditure in profit and loss account has to be bogus if he is disallowing the same. Hence, CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition in dispute, which does not need any interference on my part - Decided in favour of assessee Addition on account of static creditor - Held that - M/s Shar Opticals, USA has been outstanding of since many years in books of accounts of the assessee. Further find Ld. CIT(A) by respectfully follow the decision of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hotline Electronics Ltd. 2011 (12) TMI 90 - DELHI HIGH COURT has deleted the addition. Hence, there is no question to interfere in the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Deletion of addition under section 68 of the Act for unexplained share application money.
2. Deletion of addition on account of interest on ICD.
3. Deletion of addition on account of static creditor.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Deletion of addition under section 68 of the Act for unexplained share application money
The Department appealed against the deletion of an addition of ?10,00,000 made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Act, claiming that the parties involved were entry operators. The CIT(A) deleted the addition after considering the submissions and evidence provided by the assessee. The CIT(A) noted that the assessee had furnished confirmation from one party but not from the other two despite multiple opportunities. The Assessing Officer did not examine the documents properly and did not summon the share applicants as requested by the assessee. The CIT(A) held that the assessee had fulfilled its responsibility in providing details and deleted the addition of ?10,00,000 as unexplained cash credit. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the Assessing Officer should have examined the documents thoroughly before making the addition.

Issue 2: Deletion of addition on account of interest on ICD
The Department challenged the deletion of an addition of ?13,89,056 made by the Assessing Officer on account of interest on ICD. The CIT(A) found that the Assessing Officer's conclusion was incorrect as the interest on ICD was a legitimate business expense. The CIT(A) noted that the Assessing Officer did not have sufficient grounds to disallow the interest and deleted the addition. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the Assessing Officer needed to prove that any expenditure in the profit and loss account was bogus before disallowing it.

Issue 3: Deletion of addition on account of static creditor
The Department contested the deletion of an addition of ?32,94,678 on account of a static creditor. The CIT(A) referred to a decision of the Delhi High Court and deleted the addition based on the arguments presented by the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that there was no reason to interfere with the finding regarding the static creditor. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, affirming the decisions made by the CIT(A) on all the disputed issues.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions in dispute, emphasizing the importance of proper examination of documents and the burden of proof on the Assessing Officer to disallow legitimate business expenses.