2023 (12) TMI 1087 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 - undisclosed cash credit found in the books of the assessee - unexplained share application money in the form of share capital - HELD THAT - We find that the assessee which is regularly carrying on business activity of manufacturing sponge iron, registered under the Excise Act, holds fixed assets, having considerable amount of stock in hand and has successfully discharged the burden of proof primarily casted upon it to explain the identity and creditworthiness of investor company i.e., Bhillai Holdings Pvt. Ltd., which is group concern having common directors and shares issued at face value and no share premium has been charged. Genuineness of the share transactions and correctness of such details has not been disputed by the Revenue Authorities except making general observations. Therefore, considering the evidences placed by Ld. A/R to explain the nature and source of the alleged share application money, we find no reason to interfere with the findings of the ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition made u/s 68 of the Act. Appeal of the revenue is dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of additions under Section 68 for undisclosed cash credit.
2. Assessment of identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions.

Summary of Judgment:

Issue 1: Deletion of additions under Section 68 for undisclosed cash credit

The revenue challenged the deletion of additions amounting to Rs. 27,22,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of undisclosed cash credit found in the books of the assessee under the guise of share application money received from Bhillai Holding Pvt. Ltd. The AO added the amount as undisclosed cash credit, suspecting it to be a sham transaction to introduce unaccounted income.

Issue 2: Assessment of identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions

The assessee provided comprehensive details to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions, including the investor company's net worth, compliance with summons issued under Section 131, and reliance on various judicial precedents. The CIT(A) observed that the assessee filed sufficient documentary evidence and found no discrepancies in the details provided. The CIT(A) noted that the investor company had sufficient net worth and the transactions were genuine, leading to the deletion of the addition under Section 68.

Tribunal's Analysis and Findings:

1. Compliance and Documentation: The assessee complied with the requirements by submitting all necessary details, including PAN card, share application form, bank statements, ITRs, audited financial statements, and responses to summons under Section 131. The Tribunal noted that the primary onus cast upon the assessee under Section 68 was discharged, shifting the burden to the AO to prove otherwise, which the AO failed to do.

2. CIT(A)'s Observations: The CIT(A) thoroughly examined the facts and documents, highlighting that the share application money was received through banking channels and the investor company had sufficient net worth. The CIT(A) also referred to various judicial pronouncements supporting the deletion of the addition.

3. Revenue's Argument: The revenue argued that merely filing paper documents does not explain the nature and source of the alleged sum, emphasizing the meager income and lack of regular business activity of the share subscribers. However, no concrete evidence was provided to substantiate these claims.

4. Tribunal's Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the assessee successfully discharged the burden of proof. The Tribunal found that the investor company was regularly assessed to tax, had sufficient net worth, and the transactions were genuine. The Tribunal also noted that the AO did not conduct any independent inquiry to verify the genuineness of the transactions.

5. Judicial Precedents: The Tribunal referred to several judicial precedents, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decisions, which established that once the assessee provides necessary documents to prove identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness, the burden shifts to the AO to conduct further inquiries.

Final Decision:

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition of Rs. 27,22,00,000/- made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee had successfully explained the nature and source of the share application money, and the identity and creditworthiness of the investor company were satisfactorily established.

← Previous Next →