9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (4) TMI 333 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 68 - unexpalined share capital - genuineness of the transactions not proved - HELD THAT - A perusal of the order of the Ld.CIT(A) reveals that the assessee had furnished only the name, address and PAN of the aforesaid two parties to evidence the genuineness of the transactions. Nothing was filed to prove the creditworthiness. CIT(A) has held that the above, therefore, was insufficient for discharging the onus to prove the creditworthiness and genuineness of the said transaction. In the absence of any submissions made on behalf of the assessee before us controverting the aforestated facts as noted by the CIT(A), we see no reason to interfere in the order of CIT(A) who has rightly held that the evidences furnished by the assessee did not establish the creditworthiness of the parties to make the impugned investment in share capital, and the genuineness of the transactions therefore remained unproved. Decided against assessee. Unexplained investment - HELD THAT - As addition has been made on account of cash payment noted to have been made by the assessee for investment in land; the source of which was not explained. No evidences were filed to the Assessing Officer, nor to the learned CIT(A)explaining the source of investment. CIT(A) has recorded a finding to this effect that the assessee has failed to prove the source of investment in cash in the land purchased. Even additional evidences filed by the assessee were considered by the Ld.CIT(A) and found to be of no relevance - Decided against assessee. Disallowance of employee benefit expenses and other expenses in the absence of any evidence filed by the assessee to substantiate its claim - HELD THAT - In the absence of representation of the assessee before us, the findings of the Ld.CIT(A) remain un controverted upholding the disallowances - Decided against assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Addition to share capital under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act. 2. Addition of loan taken under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act. 3. Addition of unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Income-tax Act. 4. Disallowance of employee benefit expenses and other expenses. Summary: Issue 1: Addition to Share Capital under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act The Tribunal addressed the addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- to the assessee's income, questioning the genuineness of the share capital. The CIT(A) observed that the assessee had only provided the names, addresses, and PANs of the investors but failed to prove their creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transactions. The CIT(A) referenced various legal precedents, including the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT v. Nova Promoters Fin Lease Private Limited, emphasizing that mere submission of details without proving creditworthiness does not suffice under Section 68. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming the addition as the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the creditworthiness and genuineness of the share capital. Issue 2: Addition of Loan Taken under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act The Tribunal examined the addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- taken as a loan from Bhavnaben Hitesh Shah. The CIT(A) noted that the assessee only submitted the lender's income tax return without any confirmation or proof of creditworthiness. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the documents provided were insufficient to prove the genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness of the lender. Consequently, the addition was upheld. Issue 3: Addition of Unexplained Investment under Section 69 of the Income-tax Act The Tribunal reviewed the addition of Rs. 36,00,000/- as unexplained investment in land. The CIT(A) highlighted that the assessee failed to provide any evidence to support the source of cash payments made for the land purchase. Despite additional evidence submitted during appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) found them irrelevant to proving the source of the investment. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming the addition due to the lack of evidence explaining the cash payment source. Issue 4: Disallowance of Employee Benefit Expenses and Other Expenses The Tribunal considered the disallowance of Rs. 13,54,000/- claimed as employee benefit expenses and other expenses. The CIT(A) noted that the assessee did not provide supporting evidence for these expenses during the assessment proceedings or the appeal. Consequently, the expenses were disallowed. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming the disallowance due to the absence of substantiating evidence. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on all grounds, confirming the additions and disallowances made by the Assessing Officer due to the assessee's failure to provide sufficient evidence.
|
