2020 (1) TMI 1047 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained cash credit u/s.68 - HELD THAT - We find the all is not well with the transactions involved in these three cases under consideration. We find that neither the creditors are substantially creditworthy nor the transactions are satisfactorily genuine. The issue is now settled by the legal proposition of law as per the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. N.R.Portfolio (P) Ltd. 2013 (11) TMI 1381 - DELHI HIGH COURT in the matters of this kind. Mere bank transactions are coupled with existence of well structured documents is not adequate when there is cash deposits into the bank account few days before the date of issue of the cheque to the assessee. These questions are not answered even before us. Therefore, there is a failure on the part of the assessee to demonstrate the genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the subscribers to the share capital. Considering the same, we are of the view that the decision of the CIT(A) in this regard is fair and reasonable and does not call for any interference. Accordingly, we sustain the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). The Grounds raised by assessee in this regard are dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Addition of ?41,52,000/- treating the Share Application Money as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Genuineness and creditworthiness of the share capital subscribers.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition of ?41,52,000/- treating the Share Application Money as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:

The assessee company, engaged in steel trading, filed its return for AY 2006-07 declaring NIL income. During scrutiny, the Assessing Officer (AO) added ?68,52,000/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on account of share application money. The AO noted that there was a share application money of ?80,52,000/- from various entities, with a face value of ?1,000/- and a premium of ?9,000/-. The AO scrutinized the background and transactions of the subscribers, including companies linked to Mr. Mukesh Choksi, who had confessed to providing accommodation entries. The AO concluded that the funds were routed through dubious entities to introduce unaccounted money into the assessee's books. Consequently, the AO made an addition of ?68,52,000/-.

Upon appeal, the CIT(A) allowed the assessee's claim regarding the subscription by Shri Sambasiva Rao (?27,00,000/-) but confirmed the addition for the remaining ?41,52,000/-. The CIT(A) discussed the involvement of shell companies and the nature of accommodation entries provided by Mr. Choksi's group.

2. Genuineness and creditworthiness of the share capital subscribers:

M/s. Talent Infoway Ltd. and M/s. Buniyad Chemicals Ltd.:
The Tribunal noted that these companies belonged to Mr. Mukesh Choksi's group, known for providing accommodation entries. The Tribunal referred to the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT Vs. N.R. Portfolio (P) Ltd., emphasizing the need to investigate the genuineness of transactions beyond mere banking channels and documentation. The Tribunal directed the AO to re-examine the transactions in light of this legal proposition and provide the assessee an opportunity to present relevant Tribunal orders involving Mr. Choksi's companies. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

Shri Pavan Kumar Sharma, Shri Ratan Kumar Sharma, and Shri Anil Kumar Sharma:
The Tribunal examined the transactions of these three individuals, noting cash deposits in their accounts shortly before issuing cheques to the assessee. The CIT(A) had confirmed the AO's additions, finding that the subscribers lacked substantial creditworthiness and the transactions were not satisfactorily genuine. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, citing the Delhi High Court's ruling in CIT Vs. N.R. Portfolio (P) Ltd., which requires more than just bank transactions and documentation to prove genuineness and creditworthiness. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding these three subscribers.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, directing a re-examination of transactions involving M/s. Talent Infoway Ltd. and M/s. Buniyad Chemicals Ltd., while upholding the additions for the remaining subscribers. The decision emphasized the need for thorough scrutiny of transaction genuineness and subscriber creditworthiness in cases involving accommodation entries.