2011 (10) TMI 667 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal upholds reassessment validity under IT Act but deletes addition under Section 68

Shivank Udyog Ltd., Versus. ITO, New Delhi.

Shivank Udyog Ltd., Versus. ITO, New Delhi. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Validity of reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Justification for the addition of Rs. 34,50,000 on account of share application money under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of Reassessment Proceedings:The first issue concerns the validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee contested that the initiation of reassessment proceedings was unjust, illegal, and arbitrary. The AO had received specific information from the Directorate of Income Tax (Investigation) indicating that the Assessee was a beneficiary of accommodation entries provided by certain entry operators, amounting to Rs. 34,50,000 during the financial year 2002-03, relevant to assessment year 2003-04. The AO recorded reasons for reopening the assessment based on this information and obtained the necessary approval under Section 151 of the Act.The Assessee argued that the AO did not independently apply his mind and merely acted on the information provided by the Investigation Wing, citing the judgment in Sarthak Securities Co. P. Ltd. vs. ITO. The Assessee also referred to various judicial pronouncements emphasizing that the reasons recorded by the AO must be based on evidence and not supplemented by affidavits or oral submissions.The Tribunal, however, found that the AO had indeed applied his mind independently. The reasons recorded by the AO indicated that he had specific information about the Assessee's bogus transactions and had reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment. This was further supported by the decision in AGR Investment Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT, where the Delhi High Court upheld the initiation of reassessment proceedings based on specific information from the Investigation Wing. The Tribunal concluded that the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated, and the Assessee's contention was dismissed.2. Addition of Rs. 34,50,000 on Account of Share Application Money:The second issue pertains to the addition of Rs. 34,50,000 made by the AO under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The Assessee argued that the addition was unjust, illegal, and arbitrary. The Assessee provided various documents to support the genuineness of the share application money, including copies of share application forms, board resolutions, income tax returns, balance sheets, bank statements, certificates of incorporation, and other relevant documents.The AO issued summons to the parties involved, but the summons were either returned undelivered or there was no compliance from the parties. The AO concluded that the parties were non-existent and made the addition to the Assessee's income. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, noting that the Assessee failed to produce the principal officers of the investing companies and that there was no evidence of any dividend or interest received from these companies.The Tribunal, however, found that the Assessee had discharged its initial burden by providing sufficient documentary evidence to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal referred to several judicial decisions, including CIT vs. Oasis Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd. and CIT vs. Creative World Telefilms Ltd., which held that the onus shifts to the AO once the Assessee provides the necessary details. The Tribunal observed that the AO did not make further inquiries or confront the Assessee with any adverse findings. The Tribunal concluded that the addition of Rs. 34,50,000 was not justified and deleted the addition.Conclusion:The appeal was partly allowed. The Tribunal upheld the validity of the reassessment proceedings but deleted the addition of Rs. 34,50,000 made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal emphasized the need for the AO to conduct a thorough inquiry and not merely rely on the non-compliance of summons to make additions.