2008 (8) TMI 391 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Overturns Addition of Share Capital; Assessee Proves Shareholder Identity and Source for 1997-98.

Aquatech International Limited. Versus Income-Tax Officer.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee concerning the addition of share capital for the assessment year 1997-98. Initially, the Assessing Officer ... Share Application Money - Addition u/s 68 as share capital - transactions and genuineness of the credit related to three accounts - CIT(A) confirmed the addition on account of share capital as the source of it was not proved, which was in name of Smt. Kamla Devi, Smt. Sarita Agrawal and Anju Chordia - assessee has fully established transactions, genuineness of the credit in their names by filing evidences - addition made is unjustified. HELD THAT:- From the record, we found that assessee company has filed confirmation in respect of all the three share applicants the amount of which was received by account payee cheques. All these documents clearly establish not only identity of the share applicants but also the source from which they have given the money to the assessee company in the form of share capital. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Lovely Exports (P) Ltd.[2008 (1) TMI 575 - SC ORDER] has clearly laid down that if the share application money is received by the assessee company from the alleged bogus shareholders, whose names are given to the AO then the Department is free to proceed to reopen their individual assessments in accordance with law, however, no addition is to be made in the hands of the company. Keeping in view of the above precedent, we do not find any merit in the action of lower authorities for adding the amount of share capital in the hands of the assessee company by invoking provisions of s. 68. At the very same time, the Department is at liberty to proceed to reopen their individual assessments in accordance with law. We direct accordingly. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Issues:1. Dispute over addition of share capital in assessment year 1997-98.2. Failure to prove the source of share application money.3. Assessment under section 144 and subsequent appeal process.4. Tribunal's observations and directions to Assessing Officer.5. Retention of addition of Rs. 8.90 lakhs by Assessing Officer.6. Arguments regarding genuineness of share capital and identity of shareholders.7. Legal precedents cited by the authorized representative.8. Departmental Representative's contention on creditworthiness of share applicants.9. Tribunal's analysis and decision on the case.The judgment involves a dispute regarding the addition of share capital for the assessment year 1997-98. Initially assessed under section 144, the additions were confirmed by the CIT(A) but later referred back to the Assessing Officer by the Tribunal for reevaluation. The Tribunal highlighted the lack of findings on the evidence presented by the assessee, directing a fresh examination. The Assessing Officer, in a subsequent order, retained an addition of Rs. 8.90 lakhs for share capital from specific individuals. The CIT(A) upheld this decision, leading to the current appeal.The authorized representative argued that the assessee had fulfilled its burden by providing necessary documents proving the legitimacy of the share capital. Citing the Delhi High Court and Supreme Court judgments, the representative emphasized that the burden lay on the revenue to prove undisclosed income, which was not established in this case. The Departmental Representative contended that the creditworthiness of the share applicants remained unproven despite multiple opportunities given to the assessee.Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal found that the assessee had adequately proven the identity of the shareholders and the source of the share capital through various documents, including confirmations, bank details, and balance sheets. Relying on the precedent set by the Supreme Court, the Tribunal concluded that no addition should be made in the hands of the company under section 68. However, the Department was granted the liberty to pursue individual assessments of the shareholders if necessary.Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, emphasizing the established genuineness of the share capital and directing no addition in the company's hands while permitting further actions by the Department if deemed appropriate.This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive overview of the issues involved, the arguments presented by both sides, the legal precedents cited, and the Tribunal's final decision based on the evidence and legal principles discussed during the proceedings.