9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (11) TMI 755 - AT - Income TaxUndisclosed income under section 68 of Income tax Act - Creditworthiness - Genuineness of the transaction Held that - Creditworthiness is proved by the assessee by way of auditor s statement, copies of income tax returns and confirmations. Section 68 lays down initial burden and does not contemplate infallible burden on the assessee to prove the source of source of the share applicants and every bit of transaction which may be perceived by the AO. The nature of burden is initial in nature, which has been discharged by the assessee addition deleted
Issues:
1. Addition of Rs. 1,20,00,000 under section 68 of the IT Act 1961. 2. Addition of Rs. 2,40,000 made by the AO on account of unexplained expenditure. Analysis: Issue 1: Addition of Rs. 1,20,00,000 under section 68 of the IT Act 1961 The appellant received Rs. 1,20,00,000 as share capital, which was challenged by the Revenue. The AO reopened assessment due to doubts about the share applicants' antecedents. The appellant submitted various documents to establish the genuineness of the transaction, including confirmation of payments, bank account copies, application for share allotment, annual accounts, and income tax returns of the share applicants. The AO raised concerns about the origin of the money, linking it to another entity controlled by an individual. The AO considered the audited accounts of the share applicants as unreliable and added the share application money as unexplained cash credits under section 68. The CIT(A) deleted the addition based on the appellant's submissions and cited judgments supporting the appellant's position. The CIT(A) emphasized that the appellant had fulfilled the burden of proving the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the share applicants. The CIT(A) highlighted that the appellant had provided necessary documents, and the AO failed to prove otherwise. The CIT(A) referred to legal precedents and concluded that the appellant had established the identity of the share applicants, thereby dismissing the addition. The appellant argued that the burden under section 68 was met by providing income tax returns, audited statements, and bank account details of the share applicants. The appellant contended that the money trail demonstrated the creditworthiness of the share applicants and the genuineness of the transaction. The appellant asserted that the AO's doubts were unfounded, and the burden of proof had shifted to the Revenue, as per legal interpretations. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the appellant had discharged the initial burden of proof under section 68. The Tribunal agreed that the appellant had demonstrated the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the share applicants, relieving them of further liability. The Tribunal emphasized that section 68 imposed an initial burden on the assessee, which was adequately fulfilled by the appellant in this case. Issue 2: Addition of Rs. 2,40,000 made by the AO on account of unexplained expenditure The AO made an estimated addition of Rs. 2,40,000 as commission on the share capital amount. However, the Tribunal dismissed this addition, citing the deletion of the primary addition under section 68. Since the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the main issue, the additional expenditure addition was also dismissed. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions made by the AO.
|
