2017 (7) TMI 38 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained investment in share capital - addition u/s 68 - invoking the provisions of Section 153C - Held that - As no satisfaction was recorded. Hence, notice u/s 153A is bad-in-law and consequential order passed by AO is not sustainable. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Justification of addition under Section 68 for unexplained investment in share capital.
2. Validity of invoking provisions of Section 153C.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Justification of Addition under Section 68 for Unexplained Investment in Share Capital:
The primary issue was whether the CIT(A) was justified in allowing the addition of ?5,00,00,000 and ?2,00,00,000 under Section 68 on account of unexplained investment in share capital. The assessee argued that the shareholding companies were independent entities, maintaining regular books of accounts, having their own bank accounts, and filing separate returns of income. The assessee provided detailed documentation, including confirmations from shareholders, bank statements, and balance sheets, to establish the genuineness of the transactions. Despite these submissions, the AO concluded that the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions were not proved, leading to the addition. However, the CIT(A) deleted the additions, and the Tribunal upheld this decision, noting that the assessee had sufficiently discharged its burden by providing all necessary documentation and confirmations.

2. Validity of Invoking Provisions of Section 153C:
The second issue was whether the action of invoking Section 153C was justified. The assessee contended that the conditions of Section 153C were not satisfied, as no satisfaction was recorded by the AO of the searched person (Jogia Properties Ltd.) to initiate proceedings against the assessee. The Tribunal found that no satisfaction was recorded by the AO of Jogia Properties Ltd., as required under Section 153C. The Tribunal referred to multiple judicial pronouncements, including the Gujarat High Court's decision in Vijaybhai N Chandrani, which emphasized that the recording of satisfaction is a mandatory condition precedent for invoking Section 153C. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 153C was invalid, and the subsequent assessment order was unsustainable.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions made under Section 68, as the assessee had adequately demonstrated the genuineness of the share capital investments. Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the invocation of Section 153C was invalid due to the lack of recorded satisfaction by the AO of the searched person. As a result, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed, and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee was allowed. The Tribunal's decision was consistent with its earlier rulings in similar cases involving the same group of companies.