TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal upholds CIT(A)'s decision on IT Act section 68 additions for assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09</h1> <h3>The Income Tax Officer 10 (2) (3), Versus J.J. Multitrade Pvt. Ltd.</h3> The Income Tax Officer 10 (2) (3), Versus J.J. Multitrade Pvt. Ltd. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Deletion of addition made under section 68 of the IT Act in respect of share application money.2. Onus of proving the credit entries of share application money.Detailed Analysis:1. Deletion of Addition Made Under Section 68 of the IT Act in Respect of Share Application Money:The Revenue filed appeals against the orders of Ld. CIT(A)-21 Mumbai, which deleted the additions made under section 68 of the IT Act for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09. The additions were based on information from the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department, indicating that the investor companies issued cheques for share application money in exchange for cash.The assessee received share capital subscriptions of Rs. 10,00,000/- in A.Y 2007-08 and Rs. 5,00,000/- in A.Y 2008-09 from companies associated with Mr. Mukesh C. Choksi, who admitted to issuing cheques in return for cash. The AO issued notices under section 148 and added the amounts under section 68. The assessee contested the additions, providing evidence such as share application forms, bank statements, minutes of company meetings, and confirmations from shareholders, asserting that the transactions were genuine and compliant with the Companies Act 1956.The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the additions, relying on decisions from similar cases, including Bharti Syntex Ltd. vs. DCIT, Creative World Telefilms Ltd., and Lovely Exports. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the assessee's name did not appear in any statements from Mr. Mukesh C. Choksi, and the Department did not refute the assessee's evidence. The Tribunal cited consistent views from other cases, such as Orient Trading v/s. CIT and Mukesh Marolia Case, supporting the deletion of similar additions.2. Onus of Proving the Credit Entries of Share Application Money:The Revenue argued that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the credit entries of share application money. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee provided substantial evidence, including share application forms, confirmations from shareholders, and bank statements showing no cash deposits or withdrawals. The Tribunal emphasized that the Department did not provide contrary evidence or identify the assessee in any incriminating statements.The Tribunal referenced cases like ITO vs. Radhika Ravindrakumar Toshniwal and Smt. Jyoti D. Shah vs. ITO, where similar additions were deleted due to lack of direct evidence against the assessee and failure to provide opportunities for cross-examination.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, affirming the Ld. CIT(A)'s deletion of the additions. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee provided adequate evidence to substantiate the share application money and that the Department failed to disprove the assessee's claims. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the tax effect in both cases was below the threshold for appeals, as per CBDT Instruction No.5/2014, further justifying the dismissal of the appeals.
TaxTMI 