Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2024 (5) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2024 (5) TMI 581 - AT - Income Tax


Issues Involved:

1. Addition of Rs. 12,25,33,500/- u/s 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit.
2. Non-appearance of Directors in compliance with notice u/s 131.
3. Disregard of binding judgments by CIT(A).
4. Alleged bias in the assessment order.
5. Overlooking explanations filed by capital subscribers u/s 133(6).
6. Application of proviso to section 68.
7. Interest charged u/s 234 A/B/C.
8. Permission to produce additional evidence.
9. Permission to press new or modify grounds of appeal.

Summary:

1. Addition of Rs. 12,25,33,500/- u/s 68 of the Act:
The assessee contested the addition of Rs. 12,25,33,500/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) treating share capital and share premium as unexplained income u/s 68 of the Act. The AO's order was criticized as non-speaking and mechanical, despite the assessee furnishing all necessary details like ITRs, PANs, financial statements, bank statements, and ROC filings to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions.

2. Non-appearance of Directors u/s 131:
The AO added the amount due to the non-appearance of the directors of the subscriber companies in response to the summons issued u/s 131. The assessee argued that the directors had provided the required details and evidence, and their personal presence was not necessary. The Tribunal agreed that adverse inference could not be taken solely based on their non-appearance.

3. Disregard of binding judgments by CIT(A):
The CIT(A) confirmed the addition without considering the detailed submissions and evidence furnished by the assessee, which was argued as being in disregard of binding judgments of higher courts.

4. Alleged bias in the assessment order:
The assessee claimed the assessment order was biased and based on preconceived notions regarding share capital raising. The Tribunal found the AO's approach mechanical and lacking proper examination of the evidence.

5. Overlooking explanations filed by capital subscribers u/s 133(6):
The AO overlooked explanations and confirmations filed by the capital subscribers in response to notices u/s 133(6), which were on record before the completion of assessment proceedings.

6. Application of proviso to section 68:
The AO applied the proviso to section 68, which is applicable from AY 2013-14, to the assessee's case, which was not justified.

7. Interest charged u/s 234 A/B/C:
The CIT(A) confirmed the interest charged u/s 234 A/B/C, which the assessee argued was unjustified.

8. Permission to produce additional evidence:
The assessee sought leave to produce additional evidence in terms of Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules 1963.

9. Permission to press new or modify grounds of appeal:
The assessee sought leave to press new, additional grounds of appeal or modify, withdraw any of the grounds at the time of hearing.

Tribunal's Findings:
The Tribunal found that the AO did not make any independent enquiry to verify the genuineness of the transactions. The assessee had discharged the initial burden of proof, and the AO failed to point out any discrepancies in the evidence provided. The CIT(A)'s order was deemed non-speaking and mechanical, lacking discussion on material facts and failing to justify the addition. Consequently, the Tribunal ordered the deletion of the impugned additions.

Result:
The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates