2022 (9) TMI 68 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 - share application money - Whether assessee has discharged its onus by establishing identity and creditworthiness of parties and genuineness of the transaction? - HELD THAT - The assessee has not appeared even after giving giving sufficient opportunities either dispute or to contradict the findings of the CIT(A) and no documentary evidence made available before us to negate the findings of the A.O or CIT(A). In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the Grounds of Appeal of the assessee. Accordingly, the Grounds of Appeal No. 1 to 6 are dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Addition u/s 68 of the Act - Share application money from 19 parties totaling Rs. 14,55,00,000
2. Failure to consider submissions by the assessee
3. Ignoring evidence of identity and genuineness of the transaction
4. Lack of information from the investigation wing
5. Disregard of relevant judicial precedents

Analysis:

1. Addition u/s 68 of the Act - Share application money:
The appeal was filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirming the addition of Rs. 14,55,00,000 under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee contended that they had established the identity, creditworthiness of the parties, and the genuineness of the transaction. However, the CIT(A) upheld the addition, stating that the shareholder companies lacked profit motive, had dummy directors, and raised doubts about their capacity to pay. The parties were not produced for examination, leading to the dismissal of the appeal by the ITAT.

2. Failure to consider submissions:
The assessee argued that both the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer (AO) did not consider their submissions and relied on their own presumptions and doubts. However, the ITAT found the CIT(A)'s decision to be well-reasoned, noting that the assessee failed to appear to dispute or contradict the findings. The lack of documentary evidence to counter the AO's or CIT(A)'s findings led to the dismissal of the appeal.

3. Ignoring evidence of identity and genuineness:
The assessee claimed that the identity and genuineness of the transaction were established by the shareholders independently. They highlighted that no information from the investigation wing was received, and the CIT(A) erred in mentioning the relevance of findings of investigation in the order. Despite these arguments, the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision due to the lack of participation and evidence from the assessee.

4. Lack of information from the investigation wing:
The assessee raised the point that no information from the investigation wing was received in the case. They argued that the CIT(A) wrongly relied on the findings of the investigation. However, the ITAT did not find merit in this argument and dismissed the appeal due to the absence of the assessee and supporting documentary evidence.

5. Disregard of relevant judicial precedents:
The assessee contended that the CIT(A) and AO erred in ignoring the precedents set by the high court and apex court applicable to the case. Despite this claim, the ITAT found the CIT(A)'s decision to be logical, in accordance with the law, and consistent with judicial pronouncements by higher authorities. The ITAT concluded that there was no need to interfere with the action of the AO.

In conclusion, the ITAT dismissed the appeal as the assessee failed to participate, provide documentary evidence, and contradict the findings of the CIT(A) and AO. The decision was based on the lack of merit in the grounds of appeal presented by the assessee.

← Previous Next →