2021 (3) TMI 49 - AT - Income Tax

Bogus LTCG - unexplained credit under section 68 - Treating receipt of share application by the assessee in its books of account as unexplained credit - application for admission of additional evidence - HELD THAT - Additional evidence now sought to be filed is required to be admitted as it is necessary for deciding the issue in controversy. As we have already seen the only basis on which the addition is made is clause 2 of the agreement dated 02.02.2010. If there is no actual payment as recited in clause 2 of the agreement dated 02.02.2010, then the impugned addition under section 68 of the Act cannot be sustained. Since the contention of the assessee is that there was no actual payment but there was only a mere book entry and since this is sought to be proved with the help of the additional evidence and since such evidence has not been examined by the AO, we deem it fit and proper to remand the issue for fresh consideration in the light of the additional evidence produced by the assessee before the Tribunal. Assessee appeal allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the sum shown as receipt of share application money by the assessee should be treated as unexplained credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
The only issue in this appeal was whether the Revenue authorities were justified in adding a sum of ?2,94,57,825/- as unexplained credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee, a company providing corporate and investment advisory services, had received share application money of ?7,24,57,825/-, out of which the disputed amount of ?2,94,57,825/- was received on 30.11.2009. The assessee claimed this amount as share application money due to an adjustment of a loan liability. The dispute arose from an agreement dated 02.02.2010, where the AO and CIT(A) contended that the assessee had paid the sum to KHPL on behalf of another company, PRPL, and thus could not treat it as share application money.

The AO and CIT(A) held that the amount was paid by the appellant to KHPL on behalf of PRPL, and therefore could not be treated as share application money. The CIT(A) observed that the agreement did not support the assessee's claim that the amount was related to the liability taken over and outstanding towards KHPL. Consequently, the CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision to treat the amount as unexplained credit under section 68 of the Act.

On appeal to the Tribunal, the assessee argued that there was no actual payment made to KHPL, and the transaction was merely a book entry adjusting the sums payable by PRPL to KHPL as share application money. The Tribunal allowed the additional evidence submitted by the assessee, as it was crucial in determining whether an actual payment had been made. Since the evidence indicated that there was no actual payment but only a book entry, the Tribunal remanded the issue for fresh consideration by the AO, thereby allowing the appeal for statistical purposes.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision to admit additional evidence and remand the issue for fresh consideration highlighted the importance of establishing the nature of the transaction in determining whether the disputed amount could be classified as unexplained credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.