9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (3) TMI 772 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 68 - unexplained sundry creditors - sale of unquoted shares in the course of assessment in absence of identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the purchaser/buyer companies - lack of genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions in question - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT - Nowhere in the course of assessment proceedings, any dispute has been raised about the transactions relating to purchase of equity shares made by the assessee during the preceding year. Neither the sale transaction has been disputed and only the consideration received against such sale of equity shares held as investment in current year has been disputed by the ld. AO. Since all the details necessary to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the sundry creditors and genuineness of the transactions for sale of equity shares stands filed, assessee has discharged the primary onus casted upon it and their correctness remains unrebutted by the ld. D/R. We fail to find any infirmity in the finding of fact given by the ld. CIT(A). Our view is further supported by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Abdhut Vinimay Pvt. Ltd 2018 (10) TMI 1430 - ITAT KOLKATA dealing with similar issue where investments were brought forward from the preceding year and were sold during the year and provisions of Section 68 was invoked by the Assessing Officer this Tribunal decided in favour of the assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. Deletion of addition of Rs. 5,61,00,000/- by Ld. CIT(A) on account of sale of unquoted shares. 3. Consideration of Remand Report by Assessing Officer. 4. Verification of identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of purchaser/buyer companies. 5. Applicability of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pr.CIT [Central]-1, Kol. Vs. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. 6. Discharge of onus under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Summary: Condonation of Delay: The Tribunal condoned the six-day delay in filing the appeal, finding that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. Deletion of Addition: The revenue challenged the deletion of Rs. 5,61,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of sale of unquoted shares. The AO had added this amount under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, questioning the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the purchaser companies. Consideration of Remand Report: The Ld. CIT(A) had called for a remand report from the AO, which pointed out the lack of genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions. However, the Ld. CIT(A) examined the details provided by the assessee, including sale bills, confirmations, and PAN cards, and concluded that the transactions were genuine. Verification of Identity, Genuineness, and Creditworthiness: The assessee provided various details to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions, including bank statements, annual reports, and income tax returns of the purchaser companies. The Tribunal noted that the AO had not disputed the purchase transactions of the shares in the preceding year, only the sale transactions in the current year. Principle Laid Down by Hon'ble Supreme Court: The Tribunal referred to the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pr.CIT [Central]-1, Kol. Vs. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd., which requires the AO to investigate the creditworthiness of the subscriber and verify the identity of the subscribers. The Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged the primary onus cast upon it and that the AO's findings were based on suspicion. Discharge of Onus under Section 68: The Tribunal held that the assessee had successfully explained the source of the sum received from the sale of shares and that the AO had not provided any contrary evidence. The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition, finding no infirmity in the order. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the Ld. CIT(A)'s order and confirming that the assessee had discharged its burden of proof regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The appeal of the revenue was dismissed.
|
