2025 (6) TMI 321 - AT - Income Tax

Investors Lose Rs. 14.8 Crore Dispute as Unexplained Share Capital Addition Stands Firm Under Section 68

Sri Lakshmi Kantha Spinners Limited Versus The DCIT, Circle-3 (2), HYDERABAD.

Sri Lakshmi Kantha Spinners Limited Versus The DCIT, Circle-3 (2), HYDERABAD. - TMI 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in this appeal are:Whether the addition of Rs. 14,84,52,240/- towards unexplained share capital under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was justified in the absence of the appellant-company's evidence proving the genuineness of the share capital claimed to have been received from 413 persons.Whether the Assessing Officer and subsequently the CIT(A) were correct in making and sustaining the addition on the ground of unexplained share capital when the appellant-company failed to respond to notices and failed to produce any evidence despite specific directions from the Tribunal to verify the source of share capital.Whether the appeal should be adjudicated in the absence of the appellant-company's representation, especially given the liquidation proceedings underway against the company under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Justification for Addition of Unexplained Share Capital under Section 68 of the Income Tax ActRelevant legal framework and precedents: Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, deals with unexplained cash credits, including share capital. The provision mandates that if the assessee fails to satisfactorily explain the source of share capital, the amount is liable to be added to income as unexplained share capital. The burden of proof lies on the assessee to establish the genuineness of the share capital received.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer initially made an addition of Rs. 14,84,52,240/- towards unexplained share capital due to the appellant's failure to prove the genuineness of share capital received from 413 persons. The CIT(A) deleted this addition in the first round. However, upon appeal by the Revenue, the ITAT remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer with directions to verify at least 25% to 50% of the persons from whom share capital was claimed.Despite these directions and issuance of notices under section 133(6), the appellant-company neither appeared nor furnished any evidence or details to substantiate the share capital. The Assessing Officer then passed an order under section 144 read with section 254, making the addition again. The CIT(A) upheld this addition on the basis of the available material.Key evidence and findings: The appellant-company failed to respond to multiple notices and did not produce any evidence to prove the source of share capital. The Tribunal emphasized the absence of any explanation or documentation from the appellant, despite specific directions and opportunities to comply.Application of law to facts: Given the non-cooperation of the appellant and the lack of any evidence to explain the share capital, the Assessing Officer was justified in making the addition under section 68. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal rightly upheld the addition, applying the legal principle that unexplained share capital is liable to be added to income.Treatment of competing arguments: The appellant's non-appearance and failure to submit evidence effectively negated any argument against the addition. The Tribunal considered the appellant's silence and non-compliance as a failure to discharge the burden of proof.Conclusions: The addition of Rs. 14,84,52,240/- towards unexplained share capital under section 68 was legally sustainable and correctly upheld by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal.Issue 2: Validity of Proceeding and Appeal in Absence of Appellant's Representation Amidst LiquidationRelevant legal framework and precedents: The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), governs the liquidation of companies and appointment of official liquidators. Once a company is under liquidation, the official liquidator represents the company in legal proceedings. The procedural law permits disposal of appeals ex-parte if the appellant or their authorized representative fails to appear.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The appellant-company did not appear before the Tribunal and failed to file any representation or evidence. The company filed an order from the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Hyderabad Bench, dated 18.04.2024, directing liquidation under the IBC and appointing an official liquidator. The Tribunal issued notice to the official liquidator but received no response.Key evidence and findings: The absence of any appearance or representation from the appellant or the official liquidator despite notices and the ongoing liquidation proceedings was noted. The Tribunal observed that the appeal could be disposed of ex-parte in such circumstances.Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied procedural rules to proceed with hearing and disposal of the appeal in the absence of the appellant's representation. The liquidation status did not preclude the Tribunal from adjudicating the matter, especially since the official liquidator failed to respond.Treatment of competing arguments: There was no representation or argument from the appellant or official liquidator. The Tribunal considered the procedural necessity to decide the appeal on merits based on the record and submissions from the Revenue.Conclusions: The appeal was rightly disposed of ex-parte due to non-appearance and non-representation of the appellant-company and the official liquidator, consistent with procedural law and the circumstances of liquidation.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Tribunal succinctly stated: 'From the above, it is clear that, the assessee does not have any explanation with regard to share capital claimed to have been received from various persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that, there is no error in the reasons given by the Assessing Officer to make addition towards un-proved share capital u/sec.68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.'Core principles established include:The burden of proof to establish the genuineness of share capital lies on the assessee, and failure to discharge this burden justifies addition under section 68.Non-cooperation and failure to respond to statutory notices can lead to adverse inference and sustainment of additions on unexplained share capital.In liquidation proceedings, the official liquidator is the appropriate representative of the company, and failure of the liquidator to appear or respond permits ex-parte disposal of appeals.Final determinations on each issue are:The addition of Rs. 14,84,52,240/- towards unexplained share capital was validly made and rightly upheld by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal.The appeal was properly disposed of ex-parte due to the absence of any representation from the appellant-company or the official liquidator despite due notice.