2024 (5) TMI 1178 - AT - Income Tax

Assessment u/s 153A - Addition u/s 68 - income from undisclosed sources - HELD THAT - From examination of record in light of aforesaid rival contentions it is crystal clear that appellant / assessee Smt. Shrikanta Bajaj filed return for assessment year. Appellant / assessee is partner in M/s. RNB Leasing and Financial Services. Consequent to search and seizure operations on 20.4.2017 key of Indian Overseas Bank Locker No. 111 in the name of Lalita Bajaj and the assessee i.e. Smt. Shrikanta Bajaj was found. On search of locker No. 111 dated 12.5.2017 nothing incriminating was found as is evident from punchnama and assessment order. As decided in Lalita Bajaj and Namita Bajaj 2023 (10) TMI 557 - ITAT DELHI in these case issue was of alleging the allotment of Shares by assessee company against share application money and share premium and the AO made addition u/s 68 by holding that the identity and creditworthiness of investor and genuineness of transactions could not be established by the share application and premium recipient assessee company. But in the present case the assessee has not received any share application money or premium from the investor but the impugned transaction in the present case pertains to sale of investment/shares by the assessee to the other entities and such transaction cannot be alleged as unexplained or bogus particularly when the Department has not disputed the investment in shares of RNB Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. by the assessee during the earlier period of time i.e. in the A.Y. 2008-09 in the year of investment by the assessee. Therefore benefit of case laws relied by CIT(A) having distinct and dissimilar facts and circumstances are not available for the Revenue in the present case - Ground of assessee on merits is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition of Rs. 45,00,000 under section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Validity of assessment under section 153A based on material seized from third party.
3. Application of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Act for explanation submission.
4. Comparison with similar judgments by ITAT Delhi Bench.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the addition of Rs. 45,00,000 under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, based on funds received by the assessee. The initial assessment was made under section 143(1) for the assessment year 2015-16. The appellant contended that the funds were received for the sale of her share in a company at par value, supported by documentation. The AO and CIT(A) did not dispute the purchase of investments by the assessee. The appellant submitted additional evidence under Rule 46A, which was verified through notices under section 133(6) and replies from concerned parties, confirming the explanation provided by the assessee.

2. The validity of the assessment under section 153A was questioned as it was solely based on material seized from third parties during a search and seizure operation. The appellant argued that no incriminating material was found during the search of the locker linked to the assessee. Citing a Delhi High Court judgment, the appellant contended that assessments under section 153A should only be based on incriminating material unearthed during the search. The AO relied on findings from search operations on shell concerns linked to an entry operator, alleging accommodation entries. However, the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in a similar case held that the addition under section 68 should be deleted, as the funds received were explained through legitimate transactions.

3. The application of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Act was crucial in this case, as the appellant submitted additional evidence to support her explanation for the funds received. The remand report from the AO confirmed the authenticity of the transactions based on the documentation provided by the appellant and the concerned parties. The AO did not raise objections to the additional evidence submitted before the CIT(A), leading to the deletion of the addition under section 68.

4. The comparison with similar judgments by the ITAT Delhi Bench highlighted the consistency in decisions regarding additions under section 68 based on similar factual circumstances. The judgments emphasized the importance of verifying the genuineness of transactions and the source of funds, especially in cases involving the sale of investments or shares. The decisions favored deleting the additions when supported by valid explanations and documentary evidence.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed, and the additions made by the AO, upheld by the CIT(A), were deleted based on the detailed submissions, evidence, and consistent precedents from the ITAT Delhi Bench.