2016 (9) TMI 255 - HC - Income Tax

Additions under Section 68 - Held that - This Court has considered the concurrent order of the CIT(A) as well as the ITAT. Both these authorities primarily went by the fact that the assessee had provided sufficient indication by way of PAN numbers, to highlight the identity of the share applicants, as well as produced the affidavits of Directors. Furthermore, the bank details of the share applicants too had been provided. In the circumstances, it was held that the assessee had established the identity of the share applicants, the genuineness of transactions and their creditworthiness. The AO chose to proceed no further but merely added the amounts because of the absence of the Directors to physically present themselves before him. The assessee has, in our opinion, complied with the law spelt out by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. 2008 (1) TMI 575 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of additions under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Requirement of proving identity, genuineness of transactions, and creditworthiness of share applicants.
3. Justification for the AO's order adding amounts under Section 68 of the Act.
4. Compliance with legal requirements by the assessee in establishing identity, genuineness of transactions, and creditworthiness of share applicants.

Analysis:
1. The High Court examined the appeal challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) confirming the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) decision, which ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the additions under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act were unwarranted.

2. The re-assessment for Assessment Year 2003-04 was initiated based on a statement by Mahesh Garg alleging certain companies dealt with by the assessee were bogus. The Assessing Officer (AO) found the assessee had not proven the identity, genuineness of transactions, or creditworthiness of share applicants, leading to an addition of `78 lakhs. However, the CIT(A) reversed this addition, which was upheld by the ITAT.

3. The revenue argued that the AO's decision to add amounts under Section 68 was justified as the assessee failed to produce the Directors of share applicants and the source of funds, essential to establish identity and creditworthiness.

4. The Court reviewed the CIT(A) and ITAT orders, noting the assessee provided PAN numbers, Director affidavits, and bank details of share applicants, fulfilling the requirements. The Court emphasized that the AO's reliance on the absence of Directors was insufficient. Citing a previous case, the Court highlighted the importance of assessing material provided by the assessee before making additions under Section 68.

5. Ultimately, the Court found no legal question arising from the concurrent factual findings. It concluded that the assessee complied with legal standards set by the Supreme Court, dismissing the appeal as meritless. The judgment emphasized the importance of assessing material provided by the assessee to establish identity, genuineness of transactions, and creditworthiness of share applicants, rather than basing decisions solely on inference.