9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (3) TMI 595 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 68 - Unexplained cash credit - proof of identity, creditworthiness of the lenders / investors to advance such monies and genuineness of the transactions - HELD THAT - CIT(A) has gone by irrelevant considerations to confirm the impugned additions. The object clause of the investor entities would have no relevance vis- -vis proposed additions in the hands of the assessee u/s 68. It is trite law that no additions could be made merely on the basis of suspicion, conjectures or surmises. The impugned additions, in our considered opinion, could not be sustained under law in the light of binding judicial pronouncements as enumerated by us in the opening paragraphs. Therefore, we delete the same. Consequently, the set-off of losses, as allowable under law, would be available to the assessee. Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - We find that the original return was processed u/s 143(1) and the only requirement in law to trigger assessment was that Ld. AO certain reasons to believe that certain income escaped assessment in the hands of the assessee. We find that Ld. AO was clinched with tangible information from investigation wing which suggested possible escapement of income in the hands of the assessee. In our opinion, nothing more was required at this stage since Ld. AO had sufficient reasons to form such a belief. Therefore, we do not find much substance in assessee s legal grounds. Ground Nos. 1 to 3 stand dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Reopening of the case under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. 3. Addition of Share Capital and Share Premium as unexplained cash credit under Section 68. 4. Disallowance of business loss. 5. Initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c). 6. Calculation of interest under Section 234A, 234B, and 234C. Detailed Analysis: 1. Reopening of the Case Under Section 148: The assessee challenged the reopening of the case under Section 148, arguing that it was bad in law. The tribunal noted that the original return was processed under Section 143(1) and that the Assessing Officer (AO) had tangible information suggesting possible escapement of income. The tribunal found that the AO had sufficient reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment and thus upheld the reopening of the case. 2. Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3): The assessee contended that the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) was against the principles of natural justice as it was done without providing an opportunity to rebut the material relied upon by the AO. The tribunal observed that the AO had issued statutory notices and provided the assessee with opportunities to present requisite details and documentary evidence. Therefore, the tribunal upheld the assessment order. 3. Addition of Share Capital and Share Premium as Unexplained Cash Credit Under Section 68: The primary issue was whether the share capital and share premium received by the assessee could be regarded as unexplained cash credit under Section 68. The tribunal noted that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions with the investor entities. These included share application forms, bank statements, share certificates, financial statements, and income tax returns of the investor entities. The tribunal found that the assessee had discharged the primary onus cast upon it under Section 68, and the onus then shifted to the revenue to disprove the assessee’s claim. The tribunal concluded that the AO had not brought any cogent material or evidence to indicate that the shareholders were fictitious or that the share capital represented the assessee’s own income from undisclosed sources. Consequently, the tribunal deleted the additions made under Section 68. 4. Disallowance of Business Loss: The assessee claimed a business loss of ?60,602, which the AO disallowed. The tribunal, after deleting the additions under Section 68, allowed the set-off of losses as permissible under the law. 5. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings Under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c): The tribunal noted that the initiation of penalty proceedings was consequential to the quantum additions made by the AO. Since the tribunal deleted the additions under Section 68, the initiation of penalty proceedings was rendered infructuous. 6. Calculation of Interest Under Section 234A, 234B, and 234C: The tribunal noted that the calculation of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C was consequential in nature. Since the primary additions under Section 68 were deleted, the tribunal directed the AO to recalculate the interest accordingly. Conclusion: The tribunal partly allowed the appeals for both assessment years, deleting the additions made under Section 68 and allowing the set-off of business losses. The tribunal upheld the reopening of the case under Section 148 and the assessment order passed under Section 143(3). The initiation of penalty proceedings and the calculation of interest were rendered consequential to the tribunal's findings on the primary issues.
|
