2022 (8) TMI 264 - AT - Income Tax

Admission of additional evidence by CIT-A - Addition u/s 68 - DR argued that CIT(A) admitted the fresh evidence submitted by the assessee without considering the fact that assessee failed to furnish the said evidence before the Assessing Officer even despite sufficient opportunity been granted - HELD THAT - Except for the two parties, who could not be verified during the remand proceedings, the Assessing Officer in the remand report did not record any adverse findings regarding genuineness of the source of credit from other share applicants. Accordingly, learned CIT(A) admitted the additional evidence filed by the assessee and restricted the disallowance under section 68 of the Act only in respect of the transaction with aforesaid two parties. From the perusal of the record, we are of the considered view that when reasonable opportunity was granted by the CIT(A) to the Assessing Officer to examine the additional evidence filed by the assessee, and complete verification of all the details was done, in the remand proceedings, by the Assessing Officer, admission of additional evidence filed by the assessee cannot be faulted by taking a pedantic approach. - Decided against revenue. Insofar as the merit is concerned, as noted above, the Assessing Officer in the remand proceedings did not record any adverse findings regarding the share applicants except the two parties, who could not be verified. Accordingly, vide impugned order, learned CIT(A) restricted the disallowance under section 68 only in respect of the transaction with the aforesaid two parties. Thus, in view of the above, we find no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) in the present case. As a result, grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Admission of fresh evidence by the learned CIT(A).
2. Genuineness and creditworthiness of the share capital and share premium transactions.
3. Verification of the identity of shareholders.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Admission of Fresh Evidence by the Learned CIT(A):
The Revenue contended that the learned CIT(A) erred in admitting fresh evidence without considering that the assessee failed to furnish details before the Assessing Officer (AO). The CIT(A) admitted additional evidence during the appellate proceedings, which included new addresses of erstwhile shareholders. The AO was given an opportunity to comment on the admissibility and merit of the additional evidence. The AO did not raise specific objections to the admissibility of the additional evidence and conducted enquiries based on the new information provided. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) acted within his rights to admit the additional evidence since the AO had an opportunity to verify the details during the remand proceedings.

2. Genuineness and Creditworthiness of the Share Capital and Share Premium Transactions:
The AO initially treated the share capital and share premium received by the assessee as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to the failure of the assessee to provide sufficient evidence during the assessment proceedings. The CIT(A), after admitting the additional evidence, found that the AO did not provide any adverse findings regarding the genuineness of the transactions for the majority of the shareholders, except for two parties. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of Rs. 3,11,30,000, confirming only the addition of Rs. 8,00,000 related to the two unverified transactions.

3. Verification of the Identity of Shareholders:
During the assessment proceedings, the AO issued summons under section 131 to 29 shareholders, but only two appeared. The CIT(A) found that the AO did not inform the assessee about the non-response or non-service of summons to the remaining shareholders, thus denying the assessee an opportunity for rebuttal. During the remand proceedings, the AO verified the details of the shareholders using the new addresses provided, and found no adverse findings except for two shareholders who were out of the country. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the additional evidence provided during the appellate proceedings was not new but merely updated information about the shareholders' addresses, and thus, the evidence was rightly admitted and considered.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision to admit the additional evidence and partially allow the appeal. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, which was based on a thorough verification process during the remand proceedings. The Tribunal upheld the deletion of Rs. 3,11,30,000 and confirmed the addition of Rs. 8,00,000 related to the two unverified shareholders.