2019 (11) TMI 1234 - AT - Income Tax

Addition on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 - identity, creditworthiness etc. of the shareholders or the genuineness payment - HELD THAT - The documents filed were stated to be the audited balance sheet; Memorandum of Association of the company; names of the shareholders; bank details of the year under consideration of Bank of India, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi showing three transactions during the year under reference; ledger account of audit fee payable, audit' fees,' bank charges, payment to Image Dresses Private Limited etc. The documents filed by the assessee do not satisfy the requirement of law as per section 68 of the Act as no evidence has been submitted regarding the identity, creditworthiness etc. of the shareholders or the genuineness payment to Image Dresses Private Limited. The assessee has not produced any evidence except computer generated ledger account in support of it's contention. No bank details, documents evidencing the identity and the creditworthiness of the share holders, identity of Image Dresses Private Limited etc have been submitted either during the course of appellate or assessment proceedings. Therefore as rightly held by the Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee has not been able to submit any evidence in support of his contention that the addition made by the AO was incorrect. In view of the same the contention of the assessee was not accepted. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition of share capital as unexplained cash credit.
2. Addition of loans and advances as unexplained cash credit.
3. Validity of assessment done under section 143(3) instead of section 153C.
4. Failure to adjudicate on the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c).

Analysis:
1. The assessee challenged the addition of ?1,00,000 on account of share capital and ?10,00,000 on loans and advances as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The appellant argued that the share capital was issued in FY 2000-01 and the loans were given in FY 2011-12, both being bonafide transactions. However, the AO found the company to be a paper entity providing accommodation entries, lacking supporting documents. The appellate tribunal upheld the AO's decision, stating that the documents provided did not meet the legal requirements, failing to establish the genuineness of the transactions. Consequently, the additions were deemed valid.

2. The issue of the assessment being done under section 143(3) instead of section 153C was raised. The appellant contended that the assessment should have been conducted under section 153C due to a satisfaction note from the DCIT Central Circle Noida. However, the tribunal upheld the assessment under section 143(3), finding no merit in the appellant's argument. The tribunal deemed the assessment valid and rejected the appellant's claim for reassessment under section 153C.

3. The tribunal also addressed the failure to adjudicate on the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). The appellant argued that the CIT(A) did not consider this aspect, requesting the deletion of the addition. However, the tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the appellant failed to provide any material or evidence to support their claim. The tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the appeal.

In conclusion, the tribunal upheld the additions of share capital and loans as unexplained cash credits, validated the assessment under section 143(3), and rejected the appeal regarding penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). The tribunal's decision was based on the lack of supporting evidence provided by the appellant, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.