9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1863X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... b ORDER Per P.M. Jagtap, AM This appeal is preferred by the revenue against the order of Ld. CIT(A) 1, Kolkata dated 13.07.2016 and the solitary issue involved therein relates to the deletion by the Ld. CIT(A) of the addition of ₹ 54.35 crores made by the A.O. by treating the share capital and share premium as unexplained cash credit. 2. The assessee in the present case is a company which is engaged in the trading business. It did not file any return of income for the year under consideration under section 139(1) of the Act. A notice under section 148 therefore was issued by the A.O. in response to which the return of income for the year under consideration was filed by the assessee on 23.03.2010 declaring a total income of ₹ 9,470/-. Thereafter, assessment was completed by the A.O. under section 147/143(3) of the Act vide an order dated 05.05.2010 accepting the total income as declared by the assessee company in its return of income. The said assessment made by the A.O. was subsequently set aside by the Ld. CIT(A) vide an order dated 11.03.2013 passed under section 263 by treating the same as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase in authorized capital. iii. Bank statement of appellant company being current account no. 2297 with Canara Bank, Rabindra Sarani Branch for the period from 01.04.1999 to 31.03.2000. iv. Share application alongwith copy of bank statement of respective shareholders of the relevant period ending 31.03.2000 alongwith their audited accounts for the year ended on 31.03.2000. v. Copy of Form No. 2 (return of allotment) alongwith list of allottees for allotment of 54,35,000 shares on 30.10.1999. vi. Annual return filed with ROC for AGM in 28.09.2000. vii. Audited accounts of appellant for the year ended 31.03.2001 to 31.03.2005. 5. It was contended on behalf of the assessee company before the Ld. CIT(A) that the amount in question towards share capital and share premium having been received by it in the earlier year and not in the year under consideration, the addition made by the A.O. under section 68 by treating the same as unexplained cash credit was not sustainable. In support of this contention, reliance was placed by the assessee on the decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd. 301 ITR 384 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... question towards share capital and share premium during the earlier F.Y. 1999-2000 relevant to A.Y. 2000-01 and not during the year under consideration was not accepted by the A.O. during the course of assessment proceedings in the absence of documentary evidence filed by the assessee to support and substantiate the same. During the course of appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee company however filed such documentary evidence as additional evidence to support and substantiate its claim that the amount in question on account of share capital and share premium having been received in the earlier year and not in the year under consideration, the addition made by the A.O. by treating the same as unexplained cash credit during the year under consideration was not sustainable. The said documentary evidence filed by the assessee was forwarded by the Ld. CIT(A) to the A.O. along with the submission made by the assessee for his verification and comments. As per the direction of the Ld. CIT(A), the A.O. verified the documentary evidence filed by the assessee and found the same to in order. He also verified the claim of the assessee company from the share subscriber comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... categorically come to a finding, and that finding is not under challenge, that this is not a case of cash credit entered in the books of account of the assessee during the year but it is a case in which the assessee has invested the capital in the business and this amount was shown as a closing capital as on 31st March, 1992 and on 1st April, 1992 it was an opening balance. Considering this aspect, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that what was already credited in the books of account ending on 31st March, 1992 for financial year 1991- 92 relevant to A.Y. 1992-93 cannot be an unexplained cash credit or investment in the books of account maintained for the financial year 1992-93, the accounting period of which ends on 31st March, 1993 so as to warrant its consideration as unexplained investment or cash credit for its relevant A.Y. 1993-94. It does not require any elaborate argument that a carried forward amount of the previous year does not become an investment or cash credit generated during the relevant year 1993-94. 9. As held by the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd. (supra) as well as by the Hon ble Rajasthan High Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hows that an addition u/s 68 of the Act for making addition u/s 68 as unexplained cash credit the following condition has to be satisfied: a. sum must be found credited in the books of the assessee for any previous year; b. on being not satisfactorily explained, sum so credited may be treated as income of that previous year. Therefore, for the purpose of section 68 of the Act the year in which the sum is credited in the books of the assessee is very relevant. The main contention of the assessee was that the impugned addition amount/sum was credited in the books of the assessee for financial year/previous year 1999-2000 relevant A.Y. 2000-01. We note that the amount added in the income of the assessee as unexplained cash credit in the A.Y. 2005-06 was the same amount which was credited in the books of account of the assessee in the previous year ending on 31.03.2000. It is not the case of the revenue that this amount of credit entered in the books of account of the assessee during the year ending on 31.03.2005. The assessee s case is that this is the closing capital as on 31.03.2000 and on 01.04.2000 it was an opening balance. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) concluded th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
