9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 980 - AT - Income TaxAdditions u/s 68 - share premium - Additions u/s 69C - unexplained expenditure - Held that - assessee produced sufficient documentary evidence before A.O. at the assessment as well as appellate stage to prove ingredients of Section 68 of the I.T. Act. The A.O. however, did not make any further enquiry on the documents filed by the assessee. Thus, the A.O. failed to conduct scrutiny of the documents at assessment stage and merely suspected the transactions in question on the irrelevant reasons. The A.O. did not make any enquiry from the Banker of the Investor and Income Tax record of the Investor Company. The valuation report filed by the assessee support explanation of assessee that shares were issued at premium which were below the fair market value per share. Further, there is no material available on record to justify if assessee paid any amount of ₹ 12 lakhs as alleged commission to obtain any accommodation entry. Additions made deleted - Decided in favor of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Addition of ?6 crores under Section 68 of the I.T. Act. 2. Addition of ?12 lakhs on account of unexplained expenditure under Section 69C of the I.T. Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Addition of ?6 crores under Section 68 of the I.T. Act: The assessee challenged the addition of ?6 crores received as share application money from M/s. Mekastar Finlease P. Ltd. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) issued a notice under Section 133(6) to the investor, who confirmed the transaction and provided supporting documents, including ITR, bank statements, and balance sheets. However, the A.O. noted that the investor received funds from entities linked to the S.K. Jain group, known for providing accommodation entries. The A.O. considered the transaction as a sham and added ?6 crores as unexplained under Section 68. The assessee argued that it had discharged its onus by providing sufficient evidence to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the investor. The investor confirmed the transaction, and the assessee provided detailed documentation, including the investor's financial statements showing sufficient funds. The A.O. did not conduct further independent inquiries from the investor or related entities. The CIT(A) upheld the A.O.'s addition, relying on the findings in the S.K. Jain group cases and the lack of robust valuation for the share premium. The CIT(A) also questioned the qualifications of the valuer. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction. The investor, an NBFC registered with the RBI, confirmed the investment and provided necessary documents. The Tribunal noted that the A.O. failed to conduct further inquiries and relied on unverified reports and statements from the S.K. Jain group cases. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee cannot be asked to prove the source of the source. The Tribunal concluded that the addition of ?6 crores was unjustified and deleted it. 2. Addition of ?12 lakhs on account of unexplained expenditure under Section 69C of the I.T. Act: The assessee challenged the addition of ?12 lakhs on account of alleged commission paid for accommodation entries. The A.O. disallowed the amount, linking it to the accommodation entries provided by the S.K. Jain group. The assessee argued that there was no evidence of such payment and that the A.O.'s conclusion was based on assumptions without any corroborating material. The Tribunal found no material evidence to justify the addition of ?12 lakhs as commission paid for accommodation entries. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the authorities below and deleted the addition of ?12 lakhs. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting the additions of ?6 crores under Section 68 and ?12 lakhs under Section 69C. The Tribunal emphasized the need for the Revenue to conduct thorough inquiries and not rely on assumptions or unverified reports. The assessee successfully proved the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions, and the additions were found to be unjustified.
|
