2016 (12) TMI 617 - HC - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 - CIT (A) and the ITAT deleted the additions made - Held that - The CIT (A) s reasoning that the materials clearly pointed to the share applicants possessing substantial means to invest in the assessee s company. The AO seized certain material to say that minimal or insubstantial amounts was paid as tax by such share applicants and did not carry out a deeper analysis or rather chose to ignore it. In these circumstances, the inferences drawn by the CIT (A) are not only factual but facially accurate. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against ITAT order cancelling an amount under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Dispute regarding the genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of share applicants.
3. Assessment of the net worth of companies investing in the assessee's offerings.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the ITAT order cancelling an amount under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The revenue contended that the CIT (A) and ITAT erred in their decision, citing the law laid down in relation to Section 68. The AO added the amount under Section 68 due to doubts about the genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of share applicants.

2. The dispute revolved around the genuineness of transactions and the creditworthiness of share applicants. The CIT (A) found that the share applicants had sufficient net worth and finances to invest in the assessee's offerings. The CIT (A) emphasized that once the assessee had discharged its onus by providing necessary evidence, the burden shifted to the revenue to prove otherwise. The ITAT concurred with this view, leading to the cancellation of the added amount.

3. The assessment of the net worth of companies investing in the assessee's offerings played a crucial role in the decision. The CIT (A) framed a chart showing the net worth of various companies that had invested in the share offerings. This chart highlighted the substantial means possessed by the share applicants to invest in the assessee's company. The AO's tabular analysis was countered by the CIT (A)'s detailed assessment, leading to the conclusion that the inferences drawn by the CIT (A) were factual and accurate.

4. The Court, after considering the materials on record, found no substantial question of law. The judgment in Lovely Exports was cited and applied in the decision-making process. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the appeal, stating that there was no merit in challenging the CIT (A) and ITAT's decision to cancel the added amount under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.