2010 (8) TMI 72 - HC - Income Tax

Unexplained share capital - addition u/s 68 - CIT(A) and Tribunal deleted the addition on the ground that the respondent-assessee had proved identity of the share applicants as well as payments had been received through account payee cheques and the share applicants were assessed to income tax - Held that - the share application money cannot be regarded as undisclosed income of assessee under Section 68 of Act 1961

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to deletion of addition of share capital under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the addition of ' 25,05,000/- as unexplained share capital under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2000-2001. The Revenue contended that the Tribunal erred in law by deleting the addition without the respondent-assessee establishing the identity and creditworthiness of the share applicants and the genuineness of the transactions. However, it was found that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal had already deleted the addition based on the proof of identity of share applicants, payments received through account payee cheques, and the share applicants being assessed to income tax. The Tribunal cited previous Supreme Court decisions to support its findings, emphasizing that the share application money cannot be considered undisclosed income under Section 68 of the Act when received from alleged shareholders, allowing the tax department to reopen individual assessments if needed.

The judgment highlighted the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd., which clarified that share application money from alleged shareholders cannot be treated as undisclosed income under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court agreed with the approach taken by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal, aligning with the Supreme Court's precedent. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as lacking merit based on the established legal principles and previous judicial interpretations.