2020 (2) TMI 1737 - AT - Income Tax

Section 68 addition not applicable for share-for-share barter transactions without cash consideration, following Anand Enterprises precedent

ITO, Ward-6 (1), Kolkata Versus M/s DSR Impex Pvt. Ltd.

ITAT Kolkata held that section 68 addition was not applicable where shares were issued through barter system in exchange for existing shares without cash ... Addition u/s 68 on account of Barter transaction - alleged share capital and share premium issued against shares only - HELD THAT:- We note that the ld. CIT(A) has rightly observed that shares have been issued against the shares therefore it is nothing but barter system of issuing shares in lieu of shares. Therefore section 68 of the Act does not apply. Respectfully following the judgment of M/s Anand Enterprises Ltd. [2018 (9) TMI 1779 - ITAT KOLKATA] we note that the shares have been issued in exchange of shares therefore no any cash is involved in these transactions. Hence the provision of section 68 does not attract - Decided in favour of assessee. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe primary issues considered in this appeal were:Whether the addition of Rs. 5,20,00,000/- to the assessee's income under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was justified.Whether the transactions involving the issuance of shares in exchange for investments constituted cash credits under Section 68.Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] erred in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) based on the nature of the transactions and the evidence provided.Whether Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, was violated by the CIT(A) by remitting the matter back to the AO for further investigation and enquiry.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS1. Applicability of Section 68 of the Income Tax ActLegal Framework and Precedents: Section 68 deals with unexplained cash credits in the books of an assessee. The burden is on the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The CIT(A) relied on precedents such as the Supreme Court's decisions in CIT vs. P. Mohanakala and Sumiti Dayal Vs CIT, which emphasize the necessity of a cash receipt for invoking Section 68.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The CIT(A) observed that the transactions did not involve any cash or monetary receipt. The shares were issued in exchange for investments, and the transactions were recorded through journal entries. Therefore, the primary condition for invoking Section 68, i.e., the receipt of money, was absent.Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee provided agreements and journal entries showing the exchange of shares for investments. The CIT(A) found that the AO did not refute the evidence of the transactions or the creditworthiness of the parties involved.Application of Law to Facts: The CIT(A) concluded that since no cash or monetary transaction occurred, Section 68 was not applicable. The transactions were barter in nature, involving the exchange of shares for investments.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The AO argued that the transactions lacked genuineness due to the non-appearance of directors of shareholder companies. However, the CIT(A) noted that the identity and creditworthiness of the parties were established, and the AO did not provide evidence to suggest the transactions were fictitious.Conclusions: The CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 5,20,00,000/- under Section 68, as the transactions did not involve cash receipts and were adequately documented and explained.2. Alleged Violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax RulesLegal Framework and Precedents: Rule 46A governs the admission of additional evidence by the CIT(A). It requires that the AO be given an opportunity to examine such evidence.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The CIT(A) considered the remand report from the AO, who examined the issues and did not report any adverse findings. Thus, the CIT(A) did not violate Rule 46A.Conclusions: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the AO had the opportunity to examine the evidence and did not find any discrepancies.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSCore Principles Established: The Tribunal reiterated that Section 68 requires a cash receipt for its invocation. Transactions involving the exchange of shares for investments, recorded through journal entries without cash involvement, do not fall under Section 68.Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of Rs. 5,20,00,000/-. It concluded that the transactions were barter in nature and adequately documented, with no cash involved, thus not attracting Section 68.Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: 'In the instant case, the credit is in the form of receipt of share capital form seven share applicants. The nature of receipt towards share capital is well established from the entries passed in the respective balance sheets of the companies as share capital and investments. Hence the nature of receipt is proved by the assessee beyond doubt.' This reasoning highlights the Tribunal's reliance on the documented nature of the transactions.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s order that the transactions did not attract Section 68 due to the absence of cash receipts, and upheld the deletion of the addition of Rs. 5,20,00,000/-. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of the nature of transactions and the necessity of cash receipts for invoking Section 68, aligning with established legal precedents.