2018 (6) TMI 1315 - AT - Income Tax

Share capital as unexplained credit - addition u/s. 68 - Held that - The appellant s claims with regard to the subscription of share capital are duly supported by necessary evidence. On the other hand, there is no evidence with the revenue to indicate that the share capital subscribed / loans raised is not genuine. Even in the search and seizure conducted on the appellant, no such evidence could be unearthed. Thus the addition of share capital as unexplained credits is not legally sustainable and is deleted- decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition of share capital as unexplained credit
2. Disallowance of advances written off

Issue 1: Addition of Share Capital as Unexplained Credit

Detailed Analysis:
The Revenue appealed against the order of the ld. CIT(A) regarding the addition of share capital as unexplained credit for the assessment year 2010-11. The Assessing Officer observed an increase in paid-up capital by the assessee and questioned the creditworthiness of the investors. The AO treated the share application money as unexplained and added it to the assessee's income. The ld. CIT(A) considered the submissions and evidence provided by the assessee, including details of non-resident entities and banking transactions, to establish the genuineness of the share capital. The ld. CIT(A) relied on the ITAT's decision in the assessee's own case and concluded that the primary burden of proof was discharged by the assessee. The ITAT upheld the ld. CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the evidence presented by the assessee and the absence of contrary material. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed based on the established facts and legal precedents.

Issue 2: Disallowance of Advances Written Off

Detailed Analysis:
The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee for advances written off during the year. The assessee justified the write-off by providing details of the advances and citing them as ordinary business losses under sections 28 and 37 of the Income Tax Act. However, the AO rejected the claim, stating that the amount was originally an advance and should have been shown as income in the relevant financial year. The ld. CIT(A) sustained the disallowance of the advances written off. During the appeal, the assessee admitted the disallowance and did not contest it further. Consequently, the ITAT endorsed the ld. CIT(A)'s decision on this issue, leading to the dismissal of the cross objection raised by the assessee.

In conclusion, the ITAT upheld the decision of the ld. CIT(A) regarding both the addition of share capital as unexplained credit and the disallowance of advances written off. The legal analysis considered the evidence presented by the assessee, the principles of burden of proof, and relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act to arrive at a reasoned and legally sound judgment.