9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 884 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained cash credit u/s 68 - Bogus share transaction - as per AO shareholders complete identification reflects that such identity is managed for layering and plans for unaccounted money - CIT- A deleted the addition - HELD THAT - As sufficient enquiry have been made by the Ld. AO in respect to the share applicant whereupon confirmation has duly been made. Physical existences of all the shareholders have been proved and the genuineness of the transaction as well. We, therefore, with the above observation find that addition made under Section 68 of the Act does not fulfill the criteria laid down by the statutory provision and hence, taking into consideration the entire aspect of the matter the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting addition is found to be justified, without any ambiguity so as to warrant interference. The appeal preferred by the Revenue is found to be devoid of any merit and thus, dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Addition of unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Addition of Unexplained Cash Credit under Section 68: The Revenue's appeal was against the deletion of an addition of Rs. 2,01,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was treated as unexplained cash credit. The AO had found the share capital introduced by the assessee as not genuine, leading to the addition. Facts and Submissions: - The assessee, a dealer and trader of paper and board, filed its return of income declaring total income at Rs. 3,49,190/-. - During scrutiny assessment, it was found that the assessee introduced Rs. 1.93 crores to the share capital account through equity shares issued at a premium. - The AO treated the amount as unexplained cash credit under Section 68, noting that all shareholders had taken loans from M/s. Bigwin Paper Distributors Pvt. Ltd., which was transferred through HDFC Bank by cheques. Revenue’s Argument: - The Revenue argued that the fund was rotated among the Agrawal Group of companies, and the premium on shares was not justified. - The AO relied on various case laws to support the addition, citing that the shareholders were merely name-lenders and the transactions were not genuine. Assessee’s Argument: - The assessee provided details of the shareholders, including PAN, bank statements, and income tax returns, to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. - The assessee argued that the AO did not provide any concrete evidence to dispute the genuineness of the transactions and relied on assumptions. Tribunal’s Findings: - The Tribunal noted that the AO had issued notices under Section 133(6) to all shareholders, who duly responded and provided the necessary details. - The Tribunal observed that the AO’s addition was based on assumptions without any supporting evidence. - The Tribunal relied on several judgments, including those of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the jurisdictional High Court, which held that once the assessee provides the necessary details, the burden shifts to the Revenue to disprove the genuineness of the transactions. CIT(A)’s Observations: - The CIT(A) found that the assessee had provided complete details of the shareholders, including their names, PAN, addresses, sources of funds, bank statements, and income tax returns. - The CIT(A) noted that the AO had made enquiries directly with the shareholders, who confirmed their investments. - The CIT(A) relied on judicial precedents to conclude that the assessee had discharged its burden of proof, and the AO had failed to bring any material on record to disprove the genuineness of the transactions. Conclusion: - The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s order, finding no infirmity in the deletion of the addition made under Section 68. - The Tribunal concluded that the addition did not fulfill the criteria laid down by the statutory provision, and the Revenue’s appeal was devoid of merit. Judgment: - The appeal preferred by the Revenue was dismissed. Order Pronounced: - This order was pronounced in Open Court on 27/04/2022.
|
