9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs. 23,76,000 under section 68 for unexplained share application money. 2. Addition of Rs. 4,18,815 under section 68 for unexplained cash credits and interest of Rs. 53,845. 3. General allegations and adverse observations. 4. Claim for costs of litigation. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Addition of Rs. 23,76,000 under section 68 for unexplained share application money: The assessee, a public limited company, raised share capital and loans during the assessment year 1997-98. The Assessing Officer (AO) doubted the genuineness of Rs. 23,76,000 received from 17 parties and made additions under section 68. The assessee provided confirmations and other documents to prove the genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal analyzed the evidence and judicial precedents, including the cases of CIT v. Orissa Corpn. (P.) Ltd., CIT v. Steller Investment Ltd., and CIT v. Sophia Finance Ltd. The Tribunal concluded that the identity and genuineness of the transactions for six corporate investors and nine individual investors were established. However, the identity and genuineness of transactions for M/s. Westbury Investrade (P.) Ltd. and Shri Umesh Kumar Bansal were not proved, and the additions were upheld for these two parties. 2. Addition of Rs. 4,18,815 under section 68 for unexplained cash credits and interest of Rs. 53,845: The AO made additions for cash credits and interest in the names of six persons. The Tribunal examined the evidence provided by the assessee, including confirmations, bank statements, and other documents. The Tribunal found that the primary onus of proving the identity and creditworthiness of the creditors was discharged by the assessee. The Tribunal referred to judicial precedents, including the cases of Bahri Bros. (P.) Ltd., Mather & Platt (India) Ltd., and Khandelwal Construction v. CIT, to support its conclusion. The Tribunal held that the genuineness of the transactions was established, and the additions were deleted. 3. General allegations and adverse observations: The Tribunal noted that any action under law should be based on specific material/evidence available on record and not on general allegations or impressions. The Tribunal emphasized that suspicion does not take the place of proof and disposed of the general allegations and adverse observations accordingly. 4. Claim for costs of litigation: Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal decided not to pass any order as to costs. Conclusion: The appeal was allowed in part. The additions for unexplained share application money were upheld for M/s. Westbury Investrade (P.) Ltd. and Shri Umesh Kumar Bansal, while the additions for the remaining parties were deleted. The additions for unexplained cash credits and interest were also deleted. The general allegations and adverse observations were disposed of, and no order for costs was passed.
|
