2025 (7) TMI 765 - HC - Income Tax

Revenue's appeal dismissed as share capital receipts don't constitute assessee's income under section 68

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1 Versus M/s. Central Plastics Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi HC dismissed Revenue's appeal against ITAT's decision regarding addition under section 68 for share capital received from three companies. AO had ... Addition u/s 68 - share capital from three companies receipt -ability to make the investments - AO issued notices u/s 133(6) to the aforesaid share applicants but the said entities did not respond to the said notices - ITAT found that the investors had throughout confirmed their investments and there is no allegation that the capital receipts were the Assessee’s money - It is contended on behalf of the Revenue that the Assessee had received share capital from the three investor companies and further invested the same in the similar companies HELD THAT:- The question whether the Assessee has produced relevant material to explain the source of its resources is essentially a question of fact. However, even if we accept the Revenue’s contention that the Assessee was conduit for passing funds from investor companies to downstream investee companies, the question of assessing the receipts as income of Assessee would not arise. This is because it is implicit that the amounts received is not the Assessee’s income. The question whether the source of the funds is explained is, essentially, a question of fact. ITAT’s findings, we find that no substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court in this appeal. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered by the Court were:Whether the sums received by the Assessee as share capital from three corporate investors could be treated as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, thereby making them taxable income.Whether the Assessee had discharged the initial onus under Section 68 by adequately explaining the source and genuineness of the share capital received.Whether the expenditure incurred by the Assessee towards fees paid to the Registrar of Companies on account of increase in share capital was allowable as revenue expenditure or was to be treated under Section 35D of the Act.Whether the Revenue could contend that the Assessee was merely a conduit for transferring funds from the investor companies to downstream investee companies, and if so, whether such a contention would affect the taxability of the amounts received by the Assessee.Whether any substantial question of law arose for the High Court's consideration in the Revenue's appeal against the ITAT's order.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Taxability of Share Capital Receipts under Section 68 of the Income Tax ActRelevant legal framework and precedents: Section 68 of the Income Tax Act treats unexplained cash credits as income chargeable to tax. The initial burden lies on the Assessee to explain the nature and source of the share capital received. Judicial precedents establish that if the Assessee produces credible evidence to explain the source and genuineness of the share capital, the burden shifts back to the Revenue to disprove the explanation.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that the Assessee had received share capital from three corporate investors through banking channels. The AO issued notices under Section 133(6) to the investor companies, but they did not respond. Despite this, the Assessee furnished extensive documentation including bank statements, copies of income tax returns of the investor companies, and data from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs website confirming that the investors were live companies with sufficient funds.Key evidence and findings: The investor companies were assessed to tax, had filed returns, and had sufficient funds to make the investments. The amounts were received through banking channels, negating the possibility of cash transactions or accommodation entries. The ITAT found no allegation or material suggesting that the share capital was the Assessee's own money or that the Assessee had purchased cheques from the investors.Application of law to facts: The Court upheld the ITAT's finding that the Assessee had discharged the primary onus under Section 68 by providing credible and sufficient evidence. Since the investors were bona fide entities and the transactions were through banking channels, the sums could not be treated as unexplained cash credits.Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue contended that the share capital was unexplained and taxable. However, the Court rejected this, emphasizing the lack of any material to rebut the Assessee's evidence and the absence of any allegation of accommodation entries or benami transactions.Conclusions: The Court concluded that the share capital receipts were not taxable as unexplained cash credits under Section 68.Issue 2: Allowability of Fees Paid to Registrar of Companies on Increase of Share CapitalRelevant legal framework: Section 35D of the Income Tax Act deals with amortization of expenditure incurred on certain preliminary expenses, including fees paid for increase in share capital. Revenue expenditure is generally deductible in the year it is incurred, but capital expenditure is to be amortized over a prescribed period.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The CIT(A) held that the fees paid to the Registrar of Companies for increase in share capital were not revenue expenditure but capital in nature. Accordingly, deduction was to be computed in accordance with Section 35D.Application of law to facts: The Court endorsed the CIT(A)'s approach, directing that the expenditure be treated as capital expenditure and amortized under Section 35D.Conclusions: The expenditure was not allowable as revenue expenditure but was to be amortized as per Section 35D.Issue 3: Allegation that the Assessee was a Conduit for Transfer of FundsRelevant legal framework: The question whether the Assessee was merely a conduit for passing on funds is relevant to determine the nature of receipts and whether they constitute income. The source of funds and genuineness of transactions are key considerations.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Revenue contended that the Assessee received share capital from the three investors and invested the same in similar companies, thus acting as a conduit. The Court observed that even if this contention was accepted, it would not render the amounts received as the Assessee's income because the amounts did not belong to the Assessee but were passed on to downstream companies.Application of law to facts: The Court noted that no material was produced to show that the amounts received were the Assessee's own funds or that the Assessee had any beneficial interest in the sums beyond acting as an intermediary.Conclusions: The contention that the Assessee was a conduit did not affect the taxability of the amounts as income of the Assessee.Issue 4: Whether Substantial Question of Law ArisesCourt's reasoning: Given the factual findings by the ITAT that the Assessee had discharged its onus under Section 68 and that the investors were bona fide entities, the Court found no substantial question of law for its consideration.Conclusions: The appeal was dismissed for lack of any substantial question of law.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS'In light of the aforementioned judicial rulings, we find that in the case in hand, the investors throughout have confirmed the investment and no material has been led by the Assessing Officer to even allege that such investment was made from the coffers of the assessee company as it is not the case of the Revenue that the assessee has purchased cheque by paying cash to the investor company.''The investors are corporate entities duly assessed to tax and have made investment through banking channel from their own sources which fact has neither been denied nor rebutted in the assessment nor by the first appellate authority.''Considering the facts of the case in totality, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee has discharged the primary onus cast upon it by provisions of section 68 of the Act. It is not the case of the Revenue that the assessee is a beneficiary of accommodation entry.''The Assessment Year under consideration is Assessment Year 2012-13 and for this Assessment Year, the assessee is not required to establish source of source.'Core principles established include:The initial onus under Section 68 is on the Assessee to explain the nature and source of share capital received.Credible documentary evidence including banking channels, tax returns of investors, and corporate records can discharge this onus.Failure of the investor companies to respond to AO's notices does not automatically render the share capital unexplained if the Assessee has otherwise explained the source.Amounts received as share capital from bona fide investors through banking channels are not taxable as unexplained cash credits.Expenditure on fees for increase of share capital is capital expenditure and deductible under Section 35D.Even if the Assessee acts as a conduit for funds, such receipts do not constitute income of the Assessee unless the amounts belong to it.Final determinations:The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed as the Assessee had discharged its burden under Section 68.The share capital receipts were held not taxable as unexplained cash credits.The expenditure on Registrar of Companies fees was to be amortized under Section 35D.No substantial question of law arose for the High Court's interference.