2024 (9) TMI 952 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained cash credit u/s 68 - onus cast upon the appellant to escape the rigours of Section u/s 68 was not discharged - HELD THAT - It is clear that merely filing income tax details, share application form allotment letter, bank details and details about the creditworthiness of the share applicants is not enough to prove a transaction from the point of view of Section 68 of the Act. In this case also, the appellant is seen to have filed documents but following the extracted portions from the case of One Point Commercial Pvt Ltd, 2024 (4) TMI 751 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT it is held the onus cast on the appellant for escaping from the provisions of Section 68 of the Act have not been discharged and thus, the action of the authorities below is confirmed and the appeal on this point is dismissed. Addition u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - As appellant has not earned any exempt income this year and thus, relying on the findings in the case of Eveready Industries India Ltd. 2019 (12) TMI 1033 - ITAT KOLKATA , Vardhman Chemtech (P.) Ltd. 2018 (10) TMI 1037 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT and ERA Infrastructure (India) Ltd. 2022 (7) TMI 1093 - DELHI HIGH COURT the appellant deserves relief. Addition u/s 14A is directed to be deleted. Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Addition of Rs. 1,57,50,000/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Disallowance of Rs. 9,647/- under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition of Rs. 1,57,50,000/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:

The appellant company was incorporated in FY 2011-12 and filed its return of income on 23.12.2012, showing a total income of Rs. 289/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) focused on the genuineness of the share application money of Rs. 1,57,50,000/-, comprising Rs. 17,825 shares of face value Rs. 10/- each with a premium of Rs. 990/- each. The AO issued notice under Section 131 of the IT Act to directors of the shareholder companies, but none appeared, and the genuineness, identity, and creditworthiness of the shareholders could not be verified. The AO treated the share application money as bogus and unaccounted money under Section 68 of the IT Act due to the assessee's failure to provide an explanation.

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] confirmed the AO's decision, stating that the appellant failed to discharge the onus to escape the rigors of Section 68. The appellant approached the ITAT, arguing that it had provided sufficient documentation to prove the genuineness of the transactions, including IT acknowledgments, audited balance sheets, bank statements, and share application forms from the shareholder companies.

The ITAT considered the appellant's submissions and referred to several case laws, including the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court's decision in PCIT vs. BST Infratech Ltd. and the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel (P.) Ltd. These cases emphasized that merely proving the identity of the investors does not discharge the onus if the capacity or creditworthiness is not established. The ITAT found that the appellant's financial condition did not justify the high share premium and that the AO was justified in insisting on more verification. The ITAT concluded that the appellant failed to discharge the onus under Section 68 and confirmed the addition of Rs. 1,57,50,000/-.

2. Disallowance of Rs. 9,647/- under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962:

The AO added Rs. 9,647/- under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, relying on CBDT Circular No. 5/2014, which implied that even exempt income that may be earned in the future could be hit by the provisions of Section 14A. The CIT(A) confirmed this disallowance.

The ITAT noted that the appellant did not earn any exempt income during the year under consideration. It referred to several judicial precedents, including Eveready Industries India Ltd. vs. PCIT, PCIT vs. Vardhman Chemtech (P.) Ltd., and ERA Infrastructure (India) Ltd., which held that no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted if no exempt income is earned. The ITAT concluded that the appellant deserved relief on this point and directed the deletion of the addition of Rs. 9,647/-.

Conclusion:

The appeal was partly allowed. The addition of Rs. 1,57,50,000/- under Section 68 was confirmed, while the disallowance of Rs. 9,647/- under Section 14A was deleted. Ground No. 1 was decided against the appellant, and Ground No. 2 was decided in favor of the appellant. Ground No. 3, being general, was not specifically adjudicated. The order was pronounced in the open Court on 21st August, 2024.