9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (5) TMI 1356 - AT - Income TaxInitiation of proceedings u/s 153A - proof of incriminating material was found as a result of search conducted in the case of the assessee - addition u/s 68 - Held that - In the present case, the assessee has been able to prove identity of the investors, their creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction in the matter. Therefore, the authorities below should not have made or confirmed the addition of ₹ 5.75 crores in the hands of the assessee. In view of the above discussion, we set aside the orders of the authorities below and delete the addition DR in his written submissions referred to several documents which have been referred to CIT(A) in the impugned order to show various documents were found during the course of search in the case of the assessee. Therefore, it is not a case where no incriminating material found during the course of search. May be, this may not be relevant to the ultimate addition made on account of unexplained share application money received of ₹ 5.75 crores. Further, the search is conducted in the case of the assessee on 19.03.2012 and original return of income has been filed by the assessee after search on 30.03.2012. Therefore, there is no question of assessment already stood completed on the date of search. In view of the above sole reliance of the assessee on the decision Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Kabul Chawla (2015 (9) TMI 80 - DELHI HIGH COURT ) is clearly misplaced. This ground of appeal of the assessee has no merit, the same is accordingly dismissed - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Initiation of proceedings under section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Addition of unexplained share application money under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Initiation of Proceedings under Section 153A Background: The assessee challenged the initiation of proceedings under section 153A, arguing that no incriminating material was found during the search conducted on 19.03.2012. The original return was filed on 30.03.2012, declaring a loss of ?3,54,378. Tribunal's Findings: - The Tribunal noted that the search was conducted on the Prabhatam Group of cases, and various books of accounts and documents were seized. - The assessee argued that no assessment was pending, and thus, it did not abate, making the addition unjustified. - The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) dismissed the legal ground, stating that incriminating materials and unaccounted income were found during the search, admitted in statements under section 132(4). Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed this ground of appeal, stating that the decision in the case of CIT vs Kabul Chawla did not apply as the original return was filed after the search, and material was recovered during the search. Thus, the initiation of proceedings under section 153A was upheld. Issue 2: Addition of Unexplained Share Application Money under Section 68 Background: The assessee received share application money amounting to ?5.75 crores from two Kolkata-based companies. The AO treated this as unexplained cash credit under section 68, citing the inability of the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. Tribunal's Findings: - The assessee provided extensive documentary evidence, including addresses, CIN numbers, PAN, authorized and paid-up capital, names of directors, bank statements, and income tax returns of the investor companies. - The AO did not verify these documents and relied on the statement of Mr. Suresh Kumar Jain, who admitted to providing accommodation entries. However, his statement was not confronted with the assessee, and no cross-examination was allowed. - The Tribunal emphasized that the AO failed to conduct any scrutiny of the documents and did not issue fresh notices to the correct addresses provided by the assessee. - The Tribunal referenced multiple judicial precedents, including CIT vs Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd., CIT vs Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd., and CIT vs Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd., which support the assessee's position that once identity and creditworthiness are established, no adverse inference should be drawn merely because the shareholders did not respond to notices. Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the orders of the authorities below and deleted the addition of ?5.75 crores, stating that the assessee had sufficiently proven the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The appeal on this ground was allowed. Separate Judgments for Other Assessees: ITA No.2523/Del/2015 (Prabhatam Buildtech Ltd.) and ITA No.2524/Del/2015 (Prabhatam Buildwell Ltd.): - These cases involved similar issues regarding the initiation of proceedings under section 153A and the addition of unexplained share application money. - The Tribunal followed the reasoning in the case of Prabhatam Investment Pvt. Ltd., deleting the additions of ?3 crores and ?10.09 crores respectively. - However, the legal issue regarding the initiation of proceedings under section 153A was decided against the assessees. Final Outcome: - The appeals were partly allowed, with the deletion of the additions under section 68 but upholding the initiation of proceedings under section 153A. Pronouncement: The order was pronounced in the open court on 17th April 2017.
|
