TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Share capital receipts treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68 due to failed creditworthiness proof and round-tripping evidence</h1> <h3>The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central) -2, Kolkata Versus M/s. BST Infratech Limited</h3> The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central) -2, Kolkata Versus M/s. BST Infratech Limited - [2024] 468 ITR 111 (Cal) Issues Involved:1. Deletion of addition u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act.2. Consideration of judicial principles in the context of the case.3. Examination of the facts of the case for perversity.4. Establishment of identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions.Summary:Issue 1: Deletion of Addition u/s 68 of the Income Tax ActThe appeal by the revenue challenged the deletion of Rs. 14,63,00,000/- added as unexplained cash credit u/s 68. The Assessing Officer (AO) noted that the assessee issued shares to five companies and suspected the transactions to be a means of introducing undisclosed income. The AO added the share application money as undisclosed cash credit due to the non-appearance of directors and inadequate documentation. The CIT(A) conducted a fact-finding exercise, noting that the investor companies had negligible revenue and were involved in mere rotation of funds. The tribunal, however, held that the identity of the share subscribers was established and the transactions were genuine, thus deleting the addition.Issue 2: Consideration of Judicial PrinciplesThe revenue contended that the tribunal failed to consider the judicial principles laid down in Pr. CIT 5, Kolkata Vs Swati Bajaj, which emphasized the need for a holistic view of transactions, considering ground realities and preponderance of probabilities. The CIT(A) analyzed the financial statements and bank accounts, concluding that the transactions were well-planned and stage-managed, involving circular routing of funds. The tribunal, however, did not delve into the depth of these findings, leading to a potential oversight of crucial judicial principles.Issue 3: Examination of Facts for PerversityThe revenue argued that the tribunal's order was perverse as it failed to consider the facts properly. The CIT(A) found that the investor companies had no real business activity and were involved in rotating funds to create a façade of genuine transactions. The tribunal, however, focused on the identity and banking channels of the investors, overlooking the deeper scrutiny required to establish genuineness and creditworthiness. The High Court held that the tribunal's findings were perverse and restored the CIT(A)'s order.Issue 4: Establishment of Identity, Creditworthiness, and GenuinenessThe tribunal concluded that the identity of the share subscribers was established, and the transactions were genuine. However, the CIT(A) found that the investors had negligible business operations and were involved in circular transactions, indicating a lack of genuine creditworthiness. The High Court emphasized that mere banking transactions and income tax assessments are insufficient to establish genuineness. The onus was on the assessee to prove the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions, which was not satisfactorily discharged.Conclusion:The High Court allowed the revenue's appeal, setting aside the tribunal's order and restoring the CIT(A)'s order. The substantial questions of law were answered in favor of the revenue, emphasizing the need for a thorough examination of identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness in transactions involving share capital and premium.
TaxTMI 