2020 (12) TMI 209 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 - unexplained cash credits - HELD THAT - The clinching fact, that has remained unrebutted from the Revenue side, is that the assessee had credited the impugned sum in lieu of share allotment issued to its three group concerns not only having common directors and shareholders but also they have the same address and assessed in the same jurisdiction. Three sister concerns' copy of master data details available in the Ministry of Corporate Affairs Portal, regular audited accounts for financial year 2010-11, IT Acknowledgements for assessment year 2011-12, audited accounts not only of the said assessment year but for the succeeding assessment year 2012-13 as well as 2013-14, bank statements as well as the three directors' affidavits confirming the impugned allotment followed by the very details regarding the tax-payer itself before the Assessing Officer during the course of scrutiny. All this sufficiently indicates that the Assessing Officer's action holding the assessee to have failed in filing the necessary details in support of the impugned share allotment money goes against the case records. Coming the Revenue's argument that the assessee had never produced any of the three investor parties, we find no merit since there was no such direction from the Assessing Officer's side to this effect. Be that as it may, we make it clear that the impugned share capital has come from the three group concerns only having the common directors/shareholders, address as well as assessment jurisdiction. We hold in view of these overwhelming facts and circumstances supporting the assessee's case that the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the impugned addition. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of Section 68 addition of unexplained cash credits.
2. Identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of share applicants.
3. Compliance with procedural requirements by the assessee.
4. Revenue's arguments against the assessee's evidence.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Section 68 addition of unexplained cash credits:
The Revenue's sole substantive grievance was the CIT(A)'s order deleting the Section 68 addition of unexplained cash credits amounting to ?8,50,40,000/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) had added this amount as unexplained cash credits in the assessment order dated 29.03.2015, citing the assessee's failure to produce the investors during scrutiny to verify the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the share applicants.

2. Identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of share applicants:
The CIT(A) deleted the addition after considering the detailed submissions and documents provided by the assessee, which included:
- Common directors and shareholders between the assessee and the share applicant companies.
- Audited accounts, PAN details, and bank statements of the share applicants.
- Affidavits from the directors of the share applicant companies affirming the investments and their sources.
The CIT(A) concluded that the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the share applicants were duly established, noting that the share applicants were group companies with sufficient net worth to make the investments.

3. Compliance with procedural requirements by the assessee:
The CIT(A) observed that the AO made the addition based on vague assumptions and without considering the documents submitted by the assessee. The AO's contention that the assessee did not make proper compliance to the notice was found to be incorrect, as the assessee had submitted all relevant documents, which the AO failed to consider.

4. Revenue's arguments against the assessee's evidence:
The Revenue argued that the assessee failed to produce the investor concerns and that the transactions lacked genuineness/creditworthiness. However, the Tribunal found no merit in these arguments, noting that:
- The share capital came from group concerns with common directors and shareholders, the same address, and assessment jurisdiction.
- The assessee provided comprehensive evidence, including master data details, audited accounts, IT acknowledgments, bank statements, and affidavits from directors.
- The AO did not direct the assessee to produce the investors.
- The CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition based on overwhelming facts and circumstances supporting the assessee's case.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, concluding that the assessee had sufficiently proved the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share applicants. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, citing the Gujarat High Court's decision in PCIT vs. Gyscoal Alloys Ltd., which supported the deletion of similar Section 68 additions where the assessee had established the basic onus.

Final Judgment:
The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the CIT(A)'s order deleting the impugned addition was upheld. The order was pronounced in the open court on 22.10.2020.