2024 (9) TMI 1452 - HC - Income Tax

Unexplained share capital and share premium u/s 68 - assessee has directly or indirectly received share capital and premium from entities/persons not having creditworthiness to provide such huge amount of unsecured loans - ITAT deleted addition - HELD THAT - We note that an identical question arose for consideration in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-Central-I v. Surya Agrotech Infrastructure Limited 2023 (9) TMI 391 - DELHI HIGH COURT wherein held irresistible conclusion is that since the undisclosed income which is subject matter of the present dispute had already been taxed in the hands of the flagship company, it cannot be again subjected to tax in the hands of the respondents/assessee companies in the form of application of the said income as their share capital. No substantial question of law.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).
2. Deletion of addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of unexplained share capital and share premium under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
3. Creditworthiness of entities/persons providing share capital and premium.
4. Evidentiary value of statements under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act.
5. Taxation of unexplained income already taxed in the hands of other entities.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the ITAT Order:
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) challenged the validity of the ITAT order dated 16 May 2023, questioning whether the ITAT erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,62,00,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained share capital and share premium under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.

2. Deletion of Addition by AO:
The ITAT deleted the addition made by the AO, who had relied on the statement of Mr. Praveen Kumar Shastri, director of the Kandhari group of companies. The ITAT noted that the share capital and share premium received by M/s MSD Finance India Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Indo Gulf Infrastructure Investment Pvt. Ltd., and subsequently invested in the assessee company, were from undisclosed sources. However, the ITAT held that the source of investment for the assessee company stood explained as the funds came from these two entities, even if they were from undisclosed income.

3. Creditworthiness of Entities:
The PCIT argued that the ITAT ignored the fact that the assessee received share capital and premium from entities/persons lacking creditworthiness. The ITAT observed that the assessee had furnished various documentary evidences to prove the genuineness of the transactions, and the AO failed to bring any material to controvert the claim or falsify the evidences provided by the assessee.

4. Evidentiary Value of Statements:
The ITAT examined the evidentiary value of statements under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act made by the director of the Kandhari group companies, Mr. Pradeep Kumar Shastri. The ITAT noted that the AO relied heavily on these statements without factually examining the evidences furnished by the assessee through proper enquiry. The ITAT found that no incriminating material was found during the search and seizure operation that could link to the additions made.

5. Double Taxation of Unexplained Income:
The court considered whether the unexplained income, already taxed in the hands of M/s Indogulf Infrastructure Investment Pvt. Ltd. and M/s MSG Finance India Pvt. Ltd., could be taxed again in the hands of the assessee company. The court referred to the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-Central-I v. Surya Agrotech Infrastructure Limited, which held that income cannot be taxed twice. The court concluded that since the undisclosed income had already been taxed in the hands of the two entities, it could not be taxed again in the hands of the assessee company.

Conclusion:
Following the view expressed by the Coordinate Bench in Surya Agrotech, the court found that the appeals did not raise any substantial question of law and consequently dismissed them. The ITAT's decision to delete the addition made by the AO was upheld, and the court emphasized that the same income cannot be subjected to double taxation.

← Previous Next →