2018 (5) TMI 807 - HC - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 - Held that - In the present case, the balance-sheets or the accounts of the applicants for shares were not furnished by the assessee. On the contrary, the assessee purported to rely on similarly-worded affidavits apparently produced from the persons whose existence was doubted at every stage by the authorities. It is curious that 21 share applicants would write identical letters to the two proprietorship concerns of the principal person in control of the assessee and his wife on the same date and such persons would require the amounts standing to their credit in the proprietorship concern to be made over as share application money to the assessee company and all such 21 applicants would leave Calcutta within a few years of applying for such shares. The authorities below drew the appropriate conclusions from the facts as evident therefrom.

Summary

Issues:
- Addition of share capital under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
- Genuineness of transactions and explanation of share capital increase

Analysis:
The judgment by the High Court of Calcutta dealt with the challenge of upholding the addition of share capital amounting to ?46,72,000 in the hands of the appellant under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found discrepancies in the addresses of the purported shareholders, with most having identical addresses and being untraceable. The appellant emphasized documents indicating the names and addresses of the shareholders, but many shared common addresses near the appellant's registered office. The appellant also relied on replies from two proprietorship concerns linked to the appellant's director, but failed to substantiate the transactions. Moreover, letters from alleged creditors requesting repayment through share application money raised doubts about the genuineness of the transactions. The Court noted signs suggesting non-existence of the applicants at the provided addresses, with none found living there in 2001. Despite the appellant's submissions, the Appellate Tribunal did not find any perversity in its assessment of the facts.

Regarding the legal aspect, the appellant cited a judgment for establishing the identity and creditworthiness of share applicants through balance-sheets, which were not provided in this case. Instead, the appellant relied on identical affidavits from doubted individuals. The Court found it suspicious that 21 applicants sent identical letters to the proprietorship concerns of the appellant's director, requesting share application money transfer, and subsequently left the city. The authorities concluded that the facts indicated lack of genuineness in the transactions. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed with costs imposed on the appellant. The judgment highlights the importance of substantiating transactions and addressing doubts raised by the tax authorities to avoid additions under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.