2003 (7) TMI 257 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the addition of Rs. 59,56,000 as income from undisclosed sources by the Assessing Officer (AO) was justified.
2. Whether the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition made by the AO.
3. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in admitting additional evidence at the appellate stage.
4. Whether the AO's field enquiries were conducted in violation of natural justice principles.
5. Whether section 68 of the Income Tax Act applies to share capital introduced in the books of the assessee company.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Justification of Addition by AO:

The AO added Rs. 59,56,000 to the income of the assessee, treating it as income from undisclosed sources. The AO noted that the assessee could only provide confirmations for Rs. 39,43,300 out of the total share application money of Rs. 98,99,300. The AO made spot enquiries and found that 20 allottees, who had a common address, could not be traced. The AO concluded that these investments were benami and the identity of the investors was not established. The AO relied on the Full Bench decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Sophia Finance Ltd., which held that the assessee must establish the identity of the investors.

2. Deletion of Addition by CIT(A):

The CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 59,56,000, including Rs. 2,00,000 related to the 20 allottees. The CIT(A) held that the assessee had furnished adequate evidence to prove the genuineness of the share application money. The CIT(A) noted that the assessee had provided share application forms and a copy of the return of allotment filed with the Registrar of Companies. The CIT(A) observed that the AO had not made any adverse comments regarding the evidence filed at the appellate stage. The CIT(A) placed reliance on the decision of the Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Valimohmed Ahmedbhai, which supported the assessee's claim.

3. Admission of Additional Evidence by CIT(A):

The AO and the departmental representative argued that the CIT(A) should not have admitted additional evidence, such as share application forms, at the appellate stage. They contended that this was contrary to Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. However, the CIT(A) admitted the additional evidence under Rule 46A(4), stating that it was necessary to dispose of the appeal. The CIT(A) also noted that the AO did not make any adverse comments on the evidence submitted at the appellate stage.

4. Conduct of Field Enquiries:

The AO conducted field enquiries at the back of the assessee, which the CIT(A) and the assessee argued violated the principles of natural justice. The CIT(A) held that the AO should have confronted the assessee with the findings of the field enquiries. The CIT(A) also noted that the AO did not examine the broker, Rajyaguru & Associates, who was involved in the share allotments.

5. Applicability of Section 68:

Both the CIT(A) and the Tribunal agreed that section 68 of the Income Tax Act applies to share capital introduced in the books of the assessee company. The Full Bench decision in Sophia Finance Ltd. clarified that section 68 is applicable to share capital and that the assessee must establish the identity of the shareholders and the genuineness of the transactions.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal, after considering the rival contentions and the material on record, concluded that the CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 59,56,000 without proper verification. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the issue back to the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to provide the assessee an opportunity to furnish confirmation/authenticated application forms and to conduct necessary enquiries as per section 68. The Tribunal also directed the AO to exclude the amount of Rs. 3,00,000 confirmed by 30 allottees from the addition.