2018 (1) TMI 1075 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 - unexplained cash credit - non providing Proper and reasonable opportunity - Held that - Proper and reasonable opportunity was not provided during the course of assessment proceedings because copies of confirmation, ITR, Balance Sheet of all the companies who invested in share capital in the assessee company were duly filed during the assessment proceedings to prove the identity, genuineness and credit-worthiness whereas the same have been overlooked by AO. Also AO lost sight of the fact that the shares allotted to investing companies were not bought back till date and are still existing in the name of investing companies. As per record it reveals that sufficient compliance was made to notice issued u/s 133(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961 of the investing companies on 17.02.2015 establishing the fact of all these entities genuinely existed, which has been overlooked by the A.O. Further it is noted that since statement of Sh. Sanjeev Jain, Chairman of M/s Surya Vinayak Industries Ltd. was recorded on 25.11.2013 by Investigation Wing, New Delhi during the course of post search proceedings wherein he has completely denied giving any accommodation entry and clarified that the amount was given on account of genuine business transaction. Thus the issues in dispute are remitted back to the file of the AO to decide the issues in dispute afresh - Assessee s Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition of share application money as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Addition of received amount as unexplained cash credit without corroborative material.
3. Lack of proper and reasonable opportunity provided during assessment proceedings.

Analysis:
1. The Assessee appealed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A) upholding the addition of share application money as unexplained cash credit. The Assessee contended that proper opportunity was not provided during assessment proceedings, and relevant documents proving identity and creditworthiness were overlooked by the AO. The shares allotted to investing companies were still existing, indicating genuineness. The AO relied on statements without allowing rebuttal and failed to provide an opportunity for clarification on inquiries, leading to a lack of proper consideration. The Tribunal remitted the issues back to the AO for fresh consideration with adequate opportunity for the Assessee.

2. Another issue involved the addition of a received amount as unexplained cash credit without corroborative material. The Assessee argued the lack of evidence suggesting accommodation entry from the source. Statements denying the receipt were retracted or clarified as genuine business transactions. The Tribunal found discrepancies in the AO's reliance on statements without providing a chance for rebuttal and confrontation of inquiry findings. Consequently, the issues were sent back to the AO for a fair assessment with proper opportunity for the Assessee.

3. The third issue highlighted the lack of proper and reasonable opportunity during assessment proceedings. The Assessee emphasized the oversight of crucial documents and the failure to confront collected material. The Tribunal acknowledged the lapses in providing opportunities for rebuttal, cross-examination, and clarification on various aspects. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal directed the AO to re-examine the disputed issues after affording the Assessee a fair chance to present their case adequately.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the Assessee's appeal for statistical purposes, emphasizing the importance of providing a fair opportunity for parties to present their case during assessment proceedings. The judgment underscored the necessity of due process and proper consideration of evidence in tax assessments.