9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (6) TMI 173 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 68 on account of unexplained Share Premium - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT - CIT(A) has passed a very short and laconic order which does not exhibit proper application of mind. Accordingly in the interest of justice we remit the issue to the file of learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) is directed to consider the issue afresh and pass a proper speaking order as per law after giving the assessee proper opportunity of being heard. The learned CIT(A) will also bear in mind our observation hereinabove. In remitting the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A), we also draw support from the order of Hon ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Shri Kapurchand Shrimal 1981 (8) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT for the proposition that it is the duty of appellate authority to correct the errors in the order of authority below and remand the matter with or without direction unless prohibited by law. Appeal by the Revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Issues:
- Addition of ?20,90,19,879 under section 68 of the Act on account of unexplained Share Premium. - Assessing the genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the investors. - Interpretation of the proviso to section 68 introduced by the Finance Act 2012-13. Issue 1: Addition of ?20,90,19,879 under section 68 of the Act on account of unexplained Share Premium: The Assessing Officer (AO) noted that the assessee received share premium of ?20,90,19,879 and questioned the basis of computation. The AO raised concerns about the creditworthiness of the investors and lack of transaction details and relevant bank accounts. The AO considered the transaction non-genuine and added it as unexplained under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) allowed the appeal, stating that the appellant established the identity, capacity, and creditworthiness of the subscriber, along with the genuineness of the transaction. The CIT(A) highlighted that the premium was based on a valuation report and was capital in nature. The ITAT observed discrepancies in the AO and CIT(A) findings, leading to remitting the issue back to the CIT(A for a detailed examination. Issue 2: Assessing the genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the investors: The AO doubted the veracity of the transaction and the creditworthiness of the investors due to missing details and bank statements. The CIT(A) summarily accepted the submission without verifying if the necessary details were submitted before the assessment order. The ITAT criticized the CIT(A) for not addressing the lack of details and creditworthiness verification by relying on past court decisions that did not directly apply to the current case. The ITAT emphasized the need for a proper examination of the documents and creditworthiness before concluding on the genuineness of the transaction. Issue 3: Interpretation of the proviso to section 68 introduced by the Finance Act 2012-13: The CIT(A) mentioned the introduction of the proviso to section 68 from 1.4.2013 as per the Finance Act 2012-13 but failed to explain its significance in the context of the case. The ITAT highlighted the lack of discussion on how this proviso affected the assessment and criticized the CIT(A) for not providing a detailed analysis of relevant court decisions cited in support of the appeal. The ITAT stressed the importance of a thorough examination of legal precedents and proper application of laws in reaching a decision. In conclusion, the ITAT partially allowed the Revenue's appeal for statistical purposes and remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) for a detailed reconsideration, emphasizing the need for a proper examination of documents, creditworthiness verification, and a comprehensive analysis of legal precedents in determining the genuineness of the transaction and the applicability of relevant tax laws.
|
