2021 (10) TMI 448 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal remands case to CIT (A) for income assessability due to ownership confusion

The Tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT (A) to determine the assessability of the income due to confusion over the real owner of the amount and the ... Addition u/s 68 - accommodation entries in the shape of share premium obtained - Protective assessment - Income is taxable in whose hands? - The sole purpose of all the entities manage and controlled by the Employee of the main accused was to provide accommodation entries to various outside entities/persons. There was no actual business activities in any of the entity manage and controlled by such employee - HELD THAT:- The revenue is not very clear as to whom the amounts have been attributed and tax is to be collected. The ld. CIT (A) has also not given in any categorical finding as to which entity is the real owner of the amount. Hence, the matter is being remanded back to the file of the ld. CIT (A) to pass an order by giving a categorical finding on the assessability of the income. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Issues Involved:1. Validity of the addition of Rs. 24.78 Crores as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. The role of accommodation entries and the modus operandi of the entities involved.3. The involvement of specific individuals in the facilitation of these entries.4. The double taxation issue concerning the same amount being taxed in different hands.5. The burden of proof and the onus on the assessee to demonstrate the genuineness of the transactions.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Addition of Rs. 24.78 Crores as Unexplained Cash Credit under Section 68:The AO assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 25,11,04,450/- on a protective basis, including Rs. 24.78 Crores received as share premium from various companies. The CIT (A) upheld this addition, stating that the AO was justified in including the sum as unexplained credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee failed to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions, leading to the conclusion that the credits were bogus accommodation entries.2. Role of Accommodation Entries and the Modus Operandi:The modus operandi involved routing money through various bank accounts controlled by Himanshu Verma, who provided accommodation entries in the shape of share capital, unsecured loans, and bogus sale/purchase. This was confirmed through statements and evidence collected during search operations. The entities involved were primarily paper companies with no actual business activities, used to rotate unaccounted income.3. Involvement of Specific Individuals:The statements of Himanshu Verma and Atul Khandelwal, CA, revealed their roles in managing and facilitating these accommodation entries. Himanshu Verma admitted to controlling multiple bogus entities and providing entries for a commission. Atul Khandelwal was identified as a middleman who colluded with Verma to arrange these entries for the assessee company.4. Double Taxation Issue:The ITAT noted that the addition of Rs. 24.78 Crores had already been made in the hands of M/s Varrenyam Securities Pvt. Ltd., leading to a case of double taxation if the same amount were added in the hands of the assessee. The Tribunal observed that the amount originally belonged to the assessee, and the addition in the hands of M/s Sidhvandan Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. was deleted, indicating that the income should be assessed in the hands of the assessee.5. Burden of Proof and Onus on the Assessee:The Tribunal emphasized that the burden of proof lay on the assessee to demonstrate the genuineness of the transactions. The assessee's failure to discharge this burden led to the conclusion that the credits were unexplained and bogus. The CIT (A) and the Tribunal both held that the surrounding circumstances and the appellant's failure to provide satisfactory explanations justified the addition under Section 68.Conclusion:The Tribunal ultimately remanded the matter back to the CIT (A) to pass a categorical finding on the assessability of the income, given the confusion regarding the real owner of the amount and the issue of double taxation. The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes, pending further clarification from the CIT (A).