9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (11) TMI 10 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 68 as cash credit Addition on account of transaction of sale of shares Held that - Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Medshave Health Care Ltd. 2010 (2) TMI 120 - DELHI HIGH COURT and Akshay Portfolio (P) Ltd. 2012 (10) TMI 320 - ITAT, DELHI In the present case, assessee is share trading company. The impugned sale of shares to M/s S.J. Capital Ltd. and M/s B. Finlease India Pvt. Ltd. has been effected out of the stock in trade of the assessee. The payments for realization of sale of shares has been received through banking channels. All the corresponding entries are incorporated in the books of accounts Transaction is genuine Decided against the Revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition under Section 68 of the I.T. Act for unexplained cash credits related to the sale of shares. 2. Deletion of addition on account of commission paid to entry operator. 3. Deletion of addition on account of expenses under Section 14A of the I.T. Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Deletion of Addition under Section 68 of the I.T. Act: The primary issue pertains to the deletion of the addition of Rs. 10 lakhs for A.Y. 2002-03 and Rs. 15 lakhs for A.Y. 2003-04 under Section 68 of the I.T. Act concerning the sale of shares by the assessee, which the assessing officer held to be unexplained cash credits. The assessee, a non-banking finance company engaged in the trading of equity shares, sold shares to two firms, M/s S.J. Capital Ltd. and M/s B Finlease India Pvt. Ltd., and received the sale proceeds via account payee cheques. The assessing officer, unsatisfied with the evidence provided, added the amounts as unexplained cash credits, alleging accommodation entries. The CIT(A) deleted the additions, observing that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including confirmations from the purchasing firms and details of stock and transactions. The CIT(A) noted that the assessing officer relied on information from the DIT (Investigation) without conducting independent verification or using powers under Sections 131 and 133(6) of the Act. The CIT(A) emphasized that additions cannot be made based on surmises and conjectures without substantial evidence, citing precedents from the Apex Court. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, referencing similar cases where the genuineness of transactions was established through banking channels and corroborated by accounting entries. The Tribunal highlighted that the onus under Section 68 was discharged by the assessee and could only be rebutted by cogent reasons, which the assessing officer failed to provide. 2. Deletion of Addition on Account of Commission Paid to Entry Operator: For A.Y. 2003-04, the assessing officer presumed a commission payment of Rs. 22,500/- for the transactions, which was deleted by the CIT(A). Since the Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition for accommodation entries, the issue of commission payment did not survive. The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that without the primary addition, the related commission payment addition could not be sustained. 3. Deletion of Addition on Account of Expenses under Section 14A: The third issue involved the deletion of Rs. 4,970/- out of a total addition of Rs. 8,970/- made by the assessing officer under Section 14A of the I.T. Act for A.Y. 2003-04. The CIT(A), after considering various case laws and the facts of the case, restricted the disallowance to Rs. 5,000/-. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s reasoning justified and saw no reason to interfere with the decision, thereby upholding the partial relief granted. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals for both assessment years, upholding the CIT(A)'s orders on all issues. The judgment emphasized the necessity of substantial evidence and proper verification by the assessing officer before making additions under Section 68 and other related provisions of the I.T. Act. The Tribunal's decision reinforced the principle that additions cannot be based on mere suspicion or conjecture without credible evidence.
|
