9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (8) TMI 1522 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 68 - undisclosed cash credit - non- compliance to the summons issued on the part of the assessee - HELD THAT - We find that undisputedly the assessee has filed the evidences/details as called for by Ld. AO in respect of the share subscribers which has not been commented by Ld. AO in the assessment proceedings nor any defect has been pointed out meaning thereby that no further verification of these evidences was carried out by Ld. AO. We note that though there was a non- compliance to the summon issued u/s 131 of the Act by the directors of the assessee company, but the just mere non- compliance to the summon issued u/s 131 of the Act cannot be a ground for adding the share capital/share premium raised by the assessee during the year as unexplained cash credit u/s 68. In our opinion, the mere non- compliance to the summons issued u/s 131 of the Act is not sufficient to make the addition u/s 68 - Decided in favour of assessee. Addition u/s 14A - expenses incurred on earning exempt income - AO during the course of assessment proceedings observed that the assessee was holding investments which were capable of generating exempt income and noted that the assessee has claimed expenses of interest payment in the profit and loss account - HELD THAT - We find that undisputedly the assessee has not earned an exempt income during the year and it is a settled position of law that if the assessee has not earned any exempt income, no disallowance is required to be made u/s 14A of the Act. We note that Ld. CIT(A) has passed the appellate after following the decision of case of Cheminvest Ltd. 2015 (9) TMI 238 - DELHI HIGH COURT and Ashika Global Securities Ltd. 2018 (7) TMI 1425 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT . Accordingly, we are inclined to uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A) by dismissing the appeal of the Revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing the appeal by the Revenue. 2. Deletion of addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act for undisclosed cash credit. 3. Deletion of addition made under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act for expenses related to exempt income. Detailed Analysis: 1. Delay in Filing the Appeal: The registry pointed out a delay of 3 days in filing the appeal by the Revenue. The Revenue explained that the delay was due to the multiple stages and processes required for obtaining approval to file the appeal. Considering the facts and submissions from both sides, the tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal for adjudication. 2. Deletion of Addition under Section 68 for Undisclosed Cash Credit: The assessee filed its return of income declaring a total income of Rs. 3,14,79,262/- for AY 2012-13. During scrutiny, the Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the assessee raised share capital through equity shares amounting to Rs. 6,16,39,640/-, of which Rs. 2.34 Cr was raised during the year. The AO added Rs. 2.34 Cr as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 due to non-compliance with summons issued under Section 131 by the directors. In appellate proceedings, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] deleted the addition, stating that the assessee substantiated the identity and creditworthiness of the shareholders and the genuineness of the transactions. The CIT(A) relied on multiple judicial decisions, including CIT Vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. and PCIT Vs. Ami Industries (India) (P.) Ltd., which clarified that the proviso to Section 68 introduced in the Finance Act, 2012, effective from AY 2013-14, was not applicable for the subject assessment year. The tribunal found that the assessee had provided all required evidence, and the AO did not comment on these evidences nor pointed out any defects. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, emphasizing that mere non-compliance with summons under Section 131 is insufficient to make an addition under Section 68. The tribunal referenced several judicial precedents, including PCIT Vs. Himachal Fibers Ltd. and CIT Vs. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd., which supported the view that the initial burden of proof was discharged by the assessee. 3. Deletion of Addition under Section 14A for Expenses Related to Exempt Income: The AO observed that the assessee held investments capable of generating exempt income and claimed interest expenses in the profit and loss account. Since the assessee did not maintain separate books for expenses related to exempt income, the AO invoked Section 14A read with Rule 8D, disallowing Rs. 39,13,556/-. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, relying on the decisions in Cheminvest Ltd. vs CIT and CIT Vs. Ashika Global Securities Ltd., which established that no disallowance under Section 14A is required if no exempt income is earned during the year. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that no disallowance is warranted in the absence of exempt income, aligning with the judicial precedents cited. Cross Objection: The cross objection filed by the assessee in support of the CIT(A)'s order was dismissed as infructuous following the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal. Conclusion: The appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross objection by the assessee were both dismissed. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings on both the issues of undisclosed cash credit under Section 68 and disallowance under Section 14A.
|
