Tribunal Overturns Tax Act Additions: Share Allotment Evidence Deemed Sufficient

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the additions made under Sections 68 and 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The detailed analysis and documentary evidence provided by the assessee sufficiently discharged the onus of proving the nature and source of the share application money, and the pro-rata allotment of shares did not warrant the application of Section 56(2)(viib).

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs.34,49,600/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Addition of Rs.75,000/- under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition of Rs.34,49,600/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:

The assessee company, incorporated in 2009 but not yet operational, filed its income return for AY 2015-16, declaring an income of Rs.19,570/-. During scrutiny, the Assessing Officer (A.O) observed that the company received share application money amounting to Rs.34,49,600/- from M/s. Aayush Steelco Pvt. Ltd., a Kolkata-based company. The A.O requested supporting documents to verify the investor's creditworthiness. Despite receiving a reply from the investor, the A.O found it unsatisfactory and directed the assessee to produce the investor's directors, which the assessee failed to do. Consequently, the A.O treated the share application money as unexplained cash credit under Section 68, citing the assessee's failure to substantiate the source of funds.

Upon appeal, the CIT(Appeals) initially found the identity and source of the investor's funds satisfactory but later contradicted this by questioning the investor's creditworthiness, especially due to non-appearance of directors and alleged connections with a known entry operator. The CIT(Appeals) upheld the A.O's addition.

The Tribunal found that the investment by M/s. Aayush Steelco Pvt. Ltd. was sourced from its capital account with M/s. Sri Balaji Iron & Steel Traders, Vishakhapatnam, and was adequately substantiated with documentary evidence, including bank statements. The Tribunal also noted that the lower authorities erred in drawing adverse inferences based on the investor's shareholder being a shell company, as the investment was made from the investor's legitimate capital account. The Tribunal concluded that the onus to prove the nature and source of the share application money was duly discharged by the assessee and set aside the addition of Rs.34,49,600/- under Section 68.

2. Addition of Rs.75,000/- under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:

The A.O observed that the assessee allotted 5000 shares at a premium of Rs.90 per share, while the fair market value (FMV) was Rs.85 per share, resulting in an excess of Rs.15 per share. Consequently, an addition of Rs.75,000/- was made under Section 56(2)(viib).

The CIT(Appeals) failed to adjudicate this specific ground raised by the assessee. The Tribunal, however, found that the additional shares were allotted on a pro-rata basis to existing shareholders, maintaining their shareholding percentage. Citing precedents from the ITAT, Mumbai, and the CBDT Circular No.10 of 2018, the Tribunal noted that such pro-rata allotment does not trigger Section 56(2)(viib) as it does not result in any disproportionate allotment or increase in wealth.

The Tribunal vacated the addition of Rs.75,000/- under Section 56(2)(viib), concluding that the provisions were not applicable in this context.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the additions made under Sections 68 and 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The detailed analysis and documentary evidence provided by the assessee sufficiently discharged the onus of proving the nature and source of the share application money, and the pro-rata allotment of shares did not warrant the application of Section 56(2)(viib).

---