9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (1) TMI 1051 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 68 - Held that - Perusal of the chart given shows that the companies do have creditworthiness. Some of these investing companies are NBFCs and registered with the RBI. Such companies cannot be treated as paper companies without the A.O. gathering any evidence in support of such a finding. The assessee has furnished letters of confirmations from the investors, their full address, income tax Permanent Account numbers, copies of investors bank statements, acknowledgments of these companies of filing returns of income, balance sheets, P & L A/c etc., which does demonstrate the identity of the investing companies. The creditworthiness is proved by the substantial funds that these companies have. A perusal of the report of the Inspector of Income Tax shows that, nothing adverse has been recorded consequent to inspection and investigation. Each of the investment has not been individually examined by the A.O. It is well settled that for making an addition u/s 68 of the Act each credit has to be separately investigated and conclusions arrived at. In this case a general view has been taken by the revenue authorities. Each investment has not been examined separately. No material has been gathered by the A.O. to contradict the evidence filed by the assessee. The A.O. merely rejected the evidences without proper reason. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the addition made under section 68 cannot be sustained. - Decided in favour of assessee
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the submissions and evidence produced by the appellant. 2. Whether the appellant adequately proved the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the investors under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. 3. Whether the addition of ?3.20 crores as unexplained credits under Section 68 was justified. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Dismissal of Appeal by CIT(A) Without Considering Submissions and Evidence: The appellant contended that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without properly considering the submissions and documentary evidence provided. The appellant argued that the CIT(A) merely reiterated the assessment order without independently analyzing the evidence submitted by the appellant, which included confirmations from investors, their PAN details, bank statements, income tax returns, and balance sheets. The tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not individually verify each credit and rejected the evidence on a general basis, which was not appropriate. 2. Proof of Identity, Genuineness, and Creditworthiness of Investors: The appellant provided comprehensive documentation to establish the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the investors. This included letters of confirmation, full addresses, PAN details, bank statements, income tax return acknowledgments, and balance sheets. The tribunal observed that some of the investing companies were Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs) registered with the RBI, which added credibility to their financial standing. The tribunal also noted that the Assessing Officer’s (AO) investigation did not yield any adverse findings against the companies. The tribunal concluded that the appellant had adequately discharged the burden of proof under Section 68. 3. Justification of Addition of ?3.20 Crores as Unexplained Credits: The AO added ?3.20 crores as unexplained credits under Section 68, citing that some investing companies had declared either ‘Nil’ income or meager income, questioning their creditworthiness. The tribunal found this reasoning flawed, as the appellant demonstrated that the companies had substantial funds, and some were NBFCs. The tribunal emphasized that having low income does not necessarily imply lack of creditworthiness. The tribunal also highlighted that the AO did not individually examine each investment and relied on presumptions rather than concrete evidence. Citing precedents, the tribunal stated that for an addition under Section 68, the AO must prove that the shareholders were mere name lenders and the funds belonged to the directors of the assessee company, which was not established in this case. Case Law References: The tribunal referred to several case laws, including: - CIT vs. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd.: Establishing that identity and bank account details are sufficient to negate additions under Section 68. - CIT vs. Gangeshwari Metal P. Ltd.: Highlighting the necessity of meaningful inquiry by the AO. - CIT vs. Fair Finvest Ltd.: Emphasizing that the AO must conduct investigations and not merely rely on presumptions. - CIT vs. Lanco Industries Ltd.: Stating that unexplained investments should be treated as income in the hands of the shareholders unless proven otherwise. Conclusion: The tribunal concluded that the addition of ?3.20 crores under Section 68 was not justified as the appellant had sufficiently demonstrated the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the investors. The tribunal found that the revenue authorities failed to conduct a thorough and individual examination of each investment. Consequently, the tribunal ordered the deletion of the addition and allowed the appeal in favor of the assessee. Order Pronouncement: The tribunal pronounced the order in the open court on 18th January 2017, allowing the appeal of the assessee.
|
