2019 (2) TMI 1262 - AT - Income Tax

Appeal success: Taxpayer's cash credits deemed genuine under Income Tax Act Section 68.

Income Tax Officer Versus M/s Pratibha Griha Nirman Pvt. Ltd.

The judgment involved an appeal against the CIT(A)'s decision to add the taxpayer's share application/premium money as unexplained cash credits under ... Unexplained cash credits u/s 68 - unexplained share capital / premium - HELD THAT:- Mr. Tiwari is fair enough in not disputing all the intervening developments during the course of hearing. More particularly the clinching fact that sec. 131 process issued to the investors entities stood unresponded during scrutiny. We adopt the above detailed reasoning mutatis mutandis in this factual backdrop to restore the instant sole substantive issue back to Assessing Officer for factual verification as per law after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the taxpayer. - Decided in favour of revenue for statistical purposes. Issues:- Appeal against CIT(A)'s order adding taxpayer's share application/premium money as unexplained cash credits under section 68- Dispute over genuineness/creditworthiness of investor parties- Assessment order indicating receipt of share capital and premium totaling to a specific amount- CIT(A) reversing the addition based on documentary evidence provided by the taxpayer- Similar findings in another case involving the taxpayer's sister concern- Co-ordinate bench's order remitting the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication- Lack of response to summons issued to investor entities during scrutinyAnalysis:The judgment involves an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order regarding the addition of the taxpayer's share application/premium money as unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in reversing the addition, emphasizing the importance of proving the genuineness and creditworthiness of investor parties. The assessment order detailed the receipt of share capital and premium totaling a specific amount, leading to the addition in question. However, the CIT(A) reversed the addition, stating that the taxpayer had provided sufficient documentary evidence to prove the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of its investors.Furthermore, it was noted that the Revenue had filed a similar appeal in a case involving the taxpayer's sister concern, resulting in the issue being remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The judgment highlighted the lack of response to summons issued to investor entities during scrutiny, indicating a lack of cooperation in verifying the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions. The Co-ordinate bench's order emphasized the need for a thorough investigation and proper inquiry to determine the source of funds and ensure compliance with the law.Ultimately, the judgment accepted the Revenue's appeal for statistical purposes and remanded the sole substantive issue back to the Assessing Officer for factual verification in accordance with the law. The decision was made to provide the taxpayer with adequate opportunity to be heard and to ensure a fair and just adjudication of the matter.