9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 1017 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 68 - assessee received share application money from various entities - HELD THAT - We concur with the findings of Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee has filed sufficient documentary evidences in terms of requirements of Sec.68 with respect to all the three share subscribers. The findings of Ld. CIT(A) remain uncontroverted before us. Further, nothing has been brought on record by Ld. AO in the assessment order to dislodge the assessee s documentary evidences. Therefore, on the facts and circumstances of the case and respectfully following the cited decision of Tribunal in assessee s own case in earlier year 2018 (12) TMI 1316 - ITAT MUMBAI , we confirm the impugned order and dismiss the appeal of the revenue.
Issues:
Challenge to CIT(A) order deleting additions made by AO u/s 68 for AY 2013-14 based on share application money received from entities. Issue of identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions under Sec. 68. Applicability of earlier Tribunal decision in assessee's favor for AY 2011-12. Revenue's appeal against CIT(A) order based on documentary evidence submitted by assessee. Justification for share premium charged and compliance with Sec. 68 requirements. Analysis: The judgment involves a challenge by the revenue against the CIT(A) order deleting additions made by the AO u/s 68 for AY 2013-14 regarding share application money received by the assessee from various entities. The issue revolves around establishing the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions under Sec. 68, with the assessee relying on documentary evidence to support its case. The Ld. AR argued that a similar issue was decided in the assessee's favor by the Tribunal for AY 2011-12, which the revenue failed to counter effectively. The material facts reveal that the assessee, a resident corporate entity engaged in hospitality business, received share application money from three entities during assessment proceedings. The assessee provided documentary evidence, including share application forms, PAN details, confirmations, and bank statements, to establish the legitimacy of the transactions. The CIT(A) noted that the share application money was refunded in a subsequent year, and the subscribers had sufficient net worth to make such investments, further supporting the genuineness of the transactions. In the earlier Tribunal decision for AY 2011-12, the CIT(A) had accepted the documentary evidence furnished by the assessee, including PAN cards, board resolutions, balance sheets, and bank statements of the share applicants, to establish identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The CIT(A) concluded that the assessee had discharged its onus to prove the transactions, and the AO failed to provide contrary evidence to dispute the legitimacy of the transactions. Additionally, the CIT(A) justified the share premium charged by the assessee by referring to valuation reports and certificates, concluding that the share premium was on capital account and not of revenue nature. The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A) findings, emphasizing that the assessee had submitted sufficient documentary evidence to meet the Sec. 68 requirements, and the revenue failed to present any new facts to challenge the CIT(A) decision. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A) order, dismissing the revenue's appeal and confirming that the assessee had fulfilled the requirements of Sec. 68 with respect to the share subscribers. The judgment highlights the importance of documentary evidence in establishing the legitimacy of transactions and the burden of proof on the assessing authorities to disprove the same.
|
