9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 424 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained cash credit u/s 68 - share application and share premium money received from various entities - identification creditworthiness of the shareholder/investor company and the genuineness of the share transaction. - HELD THAT - We are unable to accept the findings of the Assessing Officer that the investors companies are not having sufficient creditworthiness to invest in the assessee company. In light of same, we are of the considered view that the assessee company has discharged the initial onus cast on it in terms of identity and creditworthiness of these two investor companies as well as demonstrating the genuineness of the transaction. The explanation offered and material submitted by the assessee company in support of its explanation is wholesome, credible and verifiable and which has not been correctly appreciated by the lower authorities and in light of the same, the addition so made by the Assessing Officer u/s 68 of the Act is not justified is hereby set aside. In the result, the ground No. 1 of assessee s appeal is allowed. Adhoc disallowance of various expenses by the CIT(A) - HELD THAT - We find that there are no specific findings by the Assessing Officer in terms of the expenses not been incurred for the purpose of business or bogus in nature. Therefore, in absence of specific defect been highlighted by the Assessing Officer, the adhoc disallowance so made and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is hereby deleted.
Issues Involved:
1. Addition of ?80.00 lakhs under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for share application and share premium money. 2. Adhoc disallowance of various expenses amounting to ?62,048. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Addition of ?80.00 lakhs under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The assessee company, engaged in manufacturing and trading of chemicals, received share capital from two entities: Sesum Marketing Pvt. Ltd. and Sundram Consultants Pvt. Ltd. The Assessing Officer (AO) questioned the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. Despite the assessee submitting income tax returns and audit reports of the investor companies, the AO observed low returned income and absence of dividends or bonuses, raising doubts about the genuineness of the investments. The AO added ?30,00,000 from Sesum Marketing Pvt. Ltd. and ?50,00,000 from Sundram Consultants Pvt. Ltd. as unexplained cash credits under Section 68. The assessee provided extensive documentation to support the identity and creditworthiness of the investor companies, including certificates of registration, bank statements, and audit reports. The assessee argued that both companies were registered as Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs) with the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and had substantial reserves and operating revenues, demonstrating their financial capability to invest. The Tribunal noted that both investor companies had been in existence for many years, regularly filed returns with the Registrar of Companies, and had substantial financial resources. The Tribunal found that the investments were made through banking channels and were part of the investors' core business activities. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee had satisfactorily demonstrated the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions, and thus, the addition made by the AO under Section 68 was not justified. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal on this ground. 2. Adhoc disallowance of various expenses amounting to ?62,048: The assessee challenged the adhoc disallowance of ?62,048 made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A). The Tribunal found that the AO did not provide specific findings or highlight any defects in the expenses claimed by the assessee. In the absence of specific defects or evidence of bogus expenses, the Tribunal deleted the adhoc disallowance. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, setting aside the addition of ?80.00 lakhs under Section 68 and deleting the adhoc disallowance of ?62,048. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee had satisfactorily demonstrated the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions and that the adhoc disallowance was not supported by specific findings. The order was pronounced in the open court on 07/02/2020.
|
