2014 (9) TMI 168 - HC - Income Tax

Onus to prove the genuineness of transaction - Unexplained cash credit u/s 68 Held that - Following the decision in COMMR. OF INCOME TAX Versus M/s LOVELY EXPORTS(PVT) LTD 2008 (1) TMI 575 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - out of 181 share applicants, 129 share applicants had appeared when summons were issued and they have accepted their investment - apart, the names and identity of the share applicants is also available on record - when the nature and source of the amount so invested is known, it cannot be said to be undisclosed income in the hands of the Spinning Mill - the burden is on the Department to show that the investment made by the share applicants actually emanated from the coffers of the assessee, so as to enable it to be treated as the undisclosed income of the assessee revenue except making a vague statement that the managing directors have advanced monies to the alleged share applicants, did not substantiate the same with concrete evidence - the addition of subscriptions as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act is unwarranted - since the share applicants in are one and the same and they have confirmed the transactions, it cannot be treated as the unexplained investment of the managing directors of the company and on that score, no addition can be made in the hands of the managing directors thus, the order of the Tribunal is upheld Decided against Revenue.

Issues Involved:
1. Application of legal precedents in determining the genuineness of share transactions.
2. Treatment of unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
3. Burden of proof on the Department to establish the source of investments.
4. Consideration of evidence in determining undisclosed income.
5. Reopening of individual assessments in case of proven bogus shareholding.

Issue 1: Application of Legal Precedents
The High Court considered whether the Income Tax Tribunal was correct in applying the decisions of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. and the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Value Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. The court analyzed the facts of the case, where out of 181 share applicants, 129 had confirmed their investments. The court found that the nature and source of the investments were known, based on the identities of the share applicants, making it distinguishable from undisclosed income.

Issue 2: Treatment of Unexplained Cash Credit
The Assessing Officer treated certain amounts as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act due to doubts about the genuineness of share transactions and the creditworthiness of shareholders. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) relied on legal precedents to allow the appeals filed by the assessees, emphasizing the need for the Department to establish the undisclosed nature of the income. The Tribunal also dismissed the appeals, stating that the share application money could not be considered unexplained income of the Spinning Mill.

Issue 3: Burden of Proof on the Department
The High Court highlighted that the burden is on the Department to prove that the investments made by share applicants originated from the assessee's funds to treat it as undisclosed income. The court noted that vague statements without concrete evidence did not substantiate the Department's claim that managing directors advanced money to share applicants, supporting the dismissal of additions under Section 68 of the Act.

Issue 4: Consideration of Evidence
In analyzing the evidence, the court found that the Department failed to provide substantial proof linking the investments to the assessee's funds. The court emphasized that the share applicants confirming the transactions, along with available identities and explanations, negated the addition of unexplained credits. The court upheld the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal based on factual assessments.

Issue 5: Reopening of Individual Assessments
The court referenced a previous judgment to support its decision that the Department had the right to reopen individual assessments if bogus shareholding allegations were proven. However, in this case, the court agreed with the findings that the transactions were genuine and adequately explained, warranting no substantial questions of law. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, and no costs were imposed.

By thoroughly examining the legal precedents, burden of proof, treatment of unexplained cash credit, and evidentiary considerations, the High Court concluded that the appeals lacked merit, leading to their dismissal.

← Previous Next →