2022 (11) TMI 521 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - addition u/s 68 69C - HELD THAT - We find that CIT(A) by well reasoned order and after considering the various decisions cited in his order and for reasons given in his order has held the reopening of the assessment u/s 148 to be in accordance with law. As far as addition on merits is concerned, he has given a finding that assessee has not discharged the onus of proving the creditworthiness of the companies who had invested in the assessee company, the genuineness of the transaction nor the assessee could produce the directors of the investing companies before the authorities. Before us, assessee has not placed any material on record to controvert the findings of lower authorities. In such a situation, we find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A). Thus the grounds of assessee are dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
Validity of assessment u/s 147/148 of the Act, Addition of Rs.1,02,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act, Addition of Rs.2,04,000/- u/s 69C of the Act, Failure to produce directors of investing companies, Discharge of onus to prove creditworthiness and genuineness of transactions.

Validity of assessment u/s 147/148 of the Act:
The appeal challenged the initiation of proceedings u/s 148 of the Act. The CIT(A) upheld the validity of the reopening by stating that the AO had validly assumed jurisdiction by recording reasons based on specific information, obtaining necessary approvals, and not acting mechanically. The CIT(A) concluded that the reopening was in accordance with the provisions of the Act, thus holding the reopening to be valid.

Addition of Rs.1,02,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act:
The AO made an addition of Rs.1,02,00,000/- as unexplained share application money received by the assessee. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, stating that the assessee failed to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the subscribing companies, and did not produce the directors of the investing companies. The CIT(A) considered various decisions and found that the assessee did not discharge the onus of proving the legitimacy of the transactions, leading to the affirmation of the addition.

Addition of Rs.2,04,000/- u/s 69C of the Act:
The AO considered Rs.2,04,000/- as undisclosed expenditure under u/s 69C of the Act, representing a 2% commission paid by the assessee for arranging accommodation entries. This addition was confirmed by the CIT(A) without any material to raise doubts on the documents filed by the appellant, emphasizing the failure to produce directors of the share applicant company.

Failure to produce directors of investing companies:
The assessee was required to produce the directors of the investing companies to establish the genuineness of the transactions. The failure to do so was a crucial factor in the decisions made by the AO and CIT(A), leading to the confirmation of additions related to share application money and commission paid.

Discharge of onus to prove creditworthiness and genuineness of transactions:
The lower authorities found that the assessee did not discharge the onus of proving the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions related to share application money. Despite the documentary evidence filed by the appellant, the failure to produce necessary information and the directors of the investing companies led to the dismissal of the appeal.

In conclusion, the appellate tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee after considering the validity of the assessment under u/s 147/148 of the Act and the additions made under u/s 68 and 69C of the Act. The failure to produce essential information and directors of the investing companies played a significant role in the decisions made by the authorities, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal.