2019 (2) TMI 1755 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal dismisses Revenue's appeal, upholds deletion of share application money addition.

DCIT 2 (2) (1), Mumbai Versus M/s. JIK Industries Ltd.

The Tribunal upheld the decision to delete the addition of share application money challenged by the Revenue. It was determined that in cases of unabated ... Assessment u/s 153A - addition of Share application money received by the assessee - HELD THAT:- We are of the view that the order passed by learned CIT(A) does not call for any interference as he has followed the decision rendered in the case of Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd. [2015 (5) TMI 656 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] in order to hold that the impugned addition is liable to be deleted as the same has been made in respect of unabated assessment year, for which no incriminating material relating to the impugned addition was found during the course of search. Accordingly, we uphold the order passed by learned CIT(A). - Decided against revenue Issues:1. Addition of share application money as unexplained cash credits.2. Interpretation of the abatement provision under the Income Tax Act.3. Validity of the decision based on the presence of incriminating material.Analysis:Issue 1: Addition of Share Application MoneyThe appeal concerned the Revenue's challenge against the deletion of an addition of &8377; 3532.20 lakhs related to share application money received by the assessee for the assessment year 2006-07. The Assessing Officer had treated the share subscription money and share premium collected by the assessee as unexplained cash credits, resulting in the aforementioned addition.Issue 2: Abatement Provision InterpretationThe assessee contended that since no incriminating material was found during the search relating to the impugned addition for the assessment year 2006-07, which did not abate, the Assessing Officer could not have made any addition. Citing the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in a similar case, the assessee argued that unabated assessments without incriminating material should not lead to additions.Issue 3: Presence of Incriminating MaterialDuring the proceedings, the Revenue failed to demonstrate that the impugned addition was based on any incriminating material unearthed during the search. The Revenue's argument lacked evidence of any incriminating material linking the share application money and premium collected by the assessee to unexplained income.The Tribunal, after considering the contentions of both parties, upheld the decision of the learned CIT(A) to delete the impugned addition. The Tribunal relied on the precedent set by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court to support the conclusion that in cases of unabated assessments without incriminating material found during a search, such additions should be deleted. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, affirming the deletion of the addition of share application money.In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment emphasized the importance of abiding by legal precedents and ensuring that additions to assessments are supported by incriminating material, especially in cases of unabated assessments.