9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 782 - AT - Income TaxBogus LTCG - unexplained cash credits u/s. 68 - HELD THAT - Hon'ble apex court s landmark decision in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. K.Y. Pilliah Sons 1966 (10) TMI 35 - SUPREME COURT to affirm both the lower authorities action treating the assessee s share capital in question as unexplained cash credits liable to be added u/s.68 of the Act in entirety. Their lordships have made it clear that when this tribunal fully agrees with the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, it need not record separate reasons than those in the lower appellate discussion. The assessee fails in its solitary grievance therefore. Assessee s appeal is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Ex parte proceedings against the assessee. 2. Addition of ?21 crores as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. 3. Genuineness, creditworthiness, and identity of the investor parties. 4. Justification of high share premium. 5. Application of case laws and judicial precedents. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Ex parte proceedings against the assessee: The case was called twice, but no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. Despite the registry sending an RPAD notice dated 26.11.2019, the taxpayer failed to appear in earlier hearings as well. Consequently, the case was proceeded ex parte. 2. Addition of ?21 crores as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act: The assessee's sole substantive grievance was against the lower authorities' action of treating its share capital of ?21 crores as bogus unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of the Act. The CIT-DR argued that the assessee failed to prove the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of its investor parties. The assessee also did not appear before the CIT(A), leading to the addition being affirmed ex parte. 3. Genuineness, creditworthiness, and identity of the investor parties: The CIT(A) noted that the directors of the appellant company and the subscribing companies were not produced before the AO. The appellant failed to establish the genuineness of the share capital and premium received. The CIT(A) emphasized that the relationship of the assessee to the applicants should be at arm's length and that the onus of proof lies with the assessee. The concept of "shifting onus" was highlighted, indicating that the onus shifts back to the assessee if the provided information is unsatisfactory or unverifiable. The CIT(A) concluded that the appellant did not discharge its onus under Section 68. 4. Justification of high share premium: The CIT(A) observed that the appellant issued 30,000 equity shares with a face value of ?10 at a premium of ?6990 per share without justification. The financials did not justify the premium charged. The CIT(A) referenced the judgment in ITO vs. M/s Blessings Commercial Pvt Ltd, where it was held that the exorbitant quantum of share premium collected shocks the conscience of any reasonable person. The assessee failed to justify the high premium, and the genuineness of the transactions was not proved. 5. Application of case laws and judicial precedents: The CIT(A) applied the Human Probability Test as laid down by the Apex Court in CIT vs. Durga Prasad More and Sumati Dayal vs. CIT. The CIT(A) also referenced the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in Rajmandir Estate Pvt. Ltd v PCIT, which discussed money laundering and the role of revenue authorities in tackling black money. The CIT(A) concluded that the assessee's transactions were not genuine and that the creditworthiness of the shareholders was not established. The CIT(A) also referenced the judgment in CIT vs. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd, which emphasized the importance of examining the evidence in depth and considering the test of human probabilities. Conclusion: The ITAT affirmed the lower authorities' action treating the assessee's share capital as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of the Act. The tribunal cited the Supreme Court decision in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. K.Y. Pilliah & Sons, stating that when the tribunal fully agrees with the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, it need not record separate reasons. The assessee's appeal was dismissed.
|
