2024 (12) TMI 1385 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 - share application money received by the assessee as income of the assessee from unexplained sources - HELD THAT - In this case has not made any independent enquiry to verify the genuineness of the transactions. Assessee having furnished all the details and documents before the AO and the AO has not pointed out any discrepancy or insufficiency in the said evidences and details furnished by the assessee before him. Assessee having discharged initial burden upon him to furnish the evidences to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the share subscribers and genuineness of the transaction, the burden shifted upon the AO to examine the evidences furnished and even made independent inquiries and thereafter to state that on what account he was not satisfied with the details and evidences furnished by the assessee and confronting with the same to the assessee. Even applying the ratio laid down in the case of PCIT vs. NRA Iron and Steel Pvt. Ltd. 2019 (3) TMI 323 - SUPREME COURT impugned additions are not warranted in this case. Appeal of the revenue is dismissed.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions addressed in this judgment are:

Whether the addition of Rs. 2,95,00,000/- as income from unexplained sources by the Assessing Officer (AO) was justified.
Whether the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions concerning the share application money were adequately established by the assessee.
Whether the non-appearance of the directors of the assessee company before the AO could be a ground for such addition under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Justification of Addition by AO

Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, places the initial burden on the assessee to explain the nature and source of any sum found credited in its books. The AO can make additions if the explanation is unsatisfactory.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal observed that the AO's order was brief and lacked detailed examination of the evidence provided by the assessee. The AO failed to point out any defects in the documents submitted by the assessee.
Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee provided names, addresses, PAN, audited financials, and bank statements of the share subscriber companies. The AO did not address these details in his order.
Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal noted that the AO did not conduct a thorough investigation or provide reasons for doubting the transactions.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal considered the AO's failure to engage with the evidence and the CIT(A)'s detailed analysis in favor of the assessee.
Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the AO's addition was not justified due to the lack of substantial inquiry and evidence evaluation.

Issue 2: Establishment of Identity, Creditworthiness, and Genuineness

Legal Framework and Precedents: The assessee must prove the identity and creditworthiness of the investors and the genuineness of the transactions. Relevant case laws include CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. and PCIT Vs. Naina Distributors Pvt. Ltd.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) thoroughly examined the evidence and established the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions.
Key Evidence and Findings: The CIT(A) considered the financials, turnover, and net worth of the share subscriber companies, which were regular tax assessees.
Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the evidence provided by the assessee met the legal requirements to establish the transactions.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's argument that the non-appearance of directors invalidated the evidence.
Conclusions: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings, confirming that the assessee discharged its burden of proof.

Issue 3: Non-Appearance of Directors

Legal Framework and Precedents: Non-appearance of directors cannot be the sole basis for addition under Section 68 if other evidence is satisfactory. Referenced cases include PCIT Vs. Naina Distributors Pvt. Ltd. and Crystal Networks Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal emphasized that the AO should have considered the documentary evidence rather than relying solely on the directors' non-appearance.
Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) considered all relevant documents and found them satisfactory.
Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal found that the AO's reliance on non-appearance was misplaced given the comprehensive evidence provided.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal found that the AO's approach was not supported by the evidence or legal precedents.
Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the non-appearance of directors did not justify the addition.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: "The AO, in this case, has miserably failed to point out any defect or discrepancy in the documents furnished by the assessee and has not discussed even minimum details, even the name of the share subscriber companies, what to say of the nature of transaction etc."
Core principles established: The initial burden of proof lies with the assessee to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions. However, the AO must conduct a thorough investigation and cannot rely solely on the non-appearance of directors.
Final determinations on each issue: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition, confirming that the assessee had adequately discharged its burden of proof and that the AO's order lacked sufficient inquiry and reasoning.

← Previous Next →