2025 (7) TMI 824 - AT - Income Tax

Assessee wins share capital dispute but loses on advances due to improper additional evidence acceptance under section 68

Asst. CIT, Central Circle-31, New Delhi. Versus M/s New India City Developers Pvt. Ltd.

ITAT Delhi upheld CIT(A)'s deletion of additions u/s 68 regarding share capital and share premium, finding that assessee demonstrated amounts were ... Unexplained credits in the books of the assessee in the form of share capital and share premium - Addition u/s 68 - identity, genuineness and credit worthiness of the parties not provided - HELD THAT:- We find that assessee has been able to demonstrate that the amounts were credited in the books of the assessee company in preceding years and there were journal entries from the account of M/s Mega Business Centres Pvt. Ltd. to the account of M/s Herry Poultries Pvt. Ltd. on 10.07.2010 and from the account of M/s Ayush Portfolios Pvt. Ltd. a transfer entry on 10.07.2020 to the account of M/s Paragon Overseas Pvt. Ltd. which were used by these two companies for subscribing the share at premium. Further from the perusal of the ledger account of M/s Mega Business Centres Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Ayush Portfolios Pvt. Ltd., it is seen that in both the accounts no fresh funds were received during the year under appeal and there were opening balances out of which the funds through journal entry were transferred to the account of both the share applicant companies namely M/s Herry Poultries Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Paragon Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Revenue has not brought any material to controvert the finding of ld. CIT(A). In view of these facts, we find no infirming the order of Ld. CIT(A) who has rightly deleted the additions made u/s 68 by holding that that fresh funds/ credits were received during the year. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) on this count and Ground of Appeal No.1 of Revenue is dismissed. Addition u/s 68 in respect of advances received and shown under the head other liability - CIT(A) deleted addition accepting fresh evidences in the shape of ITR, Balance Sheet, Confirmations, Ledger Accounts, Audit Report, Bank Statements of all the parties from whom the advances were received - HELDTHAT:- From the perusal of the above observations of the AO, it is clear that no details were filed in order to establish the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions of credits from these nine companies. Since, the details were not available before the AO as has been observed by the AO in the order as reproduced above, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have been obtained the remand report from the Assessing Officer before accepting these documents as admissible evidences which has not been done in the present case. From the perusal of the details filed, we find that no such prayer of filing of additional evidences u/r 46A was filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) nor it is a case where such details were called for by the ld. CIT(A) himself. In view of these facts, we agree with the argument of Ld. CIT-DR that the issue needs reconsideration - Ground of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes. The core legal questions considered in this appeal relate to the application of section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning unexplained credits in the assessee's books of accounts. Specifically, the issues are:1. Whether the addition of Rs. 1,97,68,500/- on account of share capital and share premium credited in the books of the assessee can be sustained under section 68, given the nature of transactions and the source of funds.2. Whether the addition of Rs. 15,93,14,500/- on account of advances received against projects, treated as unexplained income under section 68, is justified considering the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the parties involved and the nature of receipts.3. The procedural propriety of admitting additional evidence before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) without remand to the Assessing Officer for verification.Issue 1: Addition on account of share capital and share premium under section 68The relevant legal framework is section 68 of the Income Tax Act, which deals with unexplained cash credits. The provision mandates that where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee and the assessee fails to explain the nature and source of such sum, it may be charged to income tax as income of the assessee. The onus lies on the assessee to establish the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the parties from whom the share capital and share premium were received.Precedents cited include judgments that differentiate between fresh capital inflows and mere book entries or journal entries that do not involve actual receipt of funds during the year under appeal. The case law relied upon by the assessee (e.g., Jatia Investment Co. and others) establishes that section 68 is not attracted where there is no actual cash credit but only accounting entries transferring amounts already recorded in earlier years.The Court noted that the Assessing Officer (AO) made additions on the ground that certain share applicants had not paid amounts directly but through transfers from other accounts, and the source of funds was not satisfactorily explained. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) found that the amounts credited as share capital and share premium were journal entries transferring balances brought forward from earlier years, not fresh receipts during the year under appeal.The assessee produced ledger accounts, Income Tax Returns (ITRs), balance sheets, board resolutions, confirmations, and audit reports to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the parties. The CIT(A) accepted these evidences and concluded that the source of funds was adequately explained and that section 68 was not applicable.The Revenue failed to produce material to rebut the CIT(A)'s findings. The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A), holding that the preliminary condition for invoking section 68-receipt of fresh funds during the year-was not met. The addition was therefore deleted.Competing arguments by the Revenue focused on the indirect nature of the payments and alleged lack of direct receipt of funds by the assessee. However, the Tribunal emphasized that the relevant question is whether fresh funds were credited in the year under appeal, which was not the case here.Conclusion: The addition of Rs. 1,97,68,500/- under section 68 on account of share capital and share premium was rightly deleted by the CIT(A). The Tribunal upheld this deletion, dismissing the Revenue's appeal on this issue.Issue 2: Addition on account of advances against projects under section 68This issue concerns whether advances totaling Rs. 15,93,14,500/- received by the assessee from nine companies were unexplained credits under section 68. The AO had observed that these companies were private unlisted entities with no regular business activity and had shown nil or no income in their returns, raising doubts about their creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transactions.The AO noted the absence of complete audit reports, balance sheets, bank statements, and resolutions authorizing lending. The AO treated the advances as accommodation entries and made additions accordingly.The CIT(A), however, admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee during appellate proceedings, including ITRs, balance sheets, board resolutions, confirmations, ledger accounts, audit reports, and bank statements of the parties involved. The CIT(A) found that a part of the advances (Rs. 5,22,74,500/-) were journal entries transferring balances brought forward from earlier years and thus not fresh receipts. The balance amount (Rs. 10,70,40,000/-) was credited during the year and supported by bank statements demonstrating creditworthiness and genuineness.The CIT(A) concluded that the assessee had discharged its onus under section 68 and deleted the additions.The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in admitting fresh evidence without remanding the matter to the AO for verification, thus violating principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. The Revenue requested remand for verification of the documents.The Tribunal observed that the AO had not seen these documents during assessment and that no request under Rule 46A for additional evidence was made by the assessee before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) should have obtained a remand report from the AO before accepting such evidence. Given this procedural lapse, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order on this issue and remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for reconsideration after obtaining the AO's report and deciding in accordance with law.Competing arguments included the assessee's submission that the documents sufficiently proved identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness, and that the AO had not disproved these facts. However, the Tribunal prioritized procedural propriety and the need for AO's verification before final adjudication.Conclusion: The addition on account of advances against projects requires reconsideration. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh decision after obtaining the AO's verification report. The Revenue's appeal was partly allowed on this ground.Issue 3: Procedural propriety in admitting additional evidenceThe Tribunal underscored the importance of procedural fairness in tax proceedings. When additional evidence is filed before the appellate authority that was not available to the AO, the appellate authority should seek a remand report from the AO to enable verification and comments on the new evidence. Failure to do so may vitiate the appellate order.In this case, the CIT(A) admitted voluminous documents supporting the assessee's claims without remanding the matter to the AO. The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue's contention that this was improper and necessitated remand for verification.This principle ensures that the AO, who is the fact-finder at the assessment stage, has an opportunity to examine and comment on new evidence before the appellate authority passes final orders.Significant holdings and core principles1. 'For invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Act, the preliminary condition is that the amount should be credited in the books in the year under appeal which fact is not present in the case of the assessee.'2. Where share capital and premium are increased by way of journal entries transferring brought forward balances and no fresh funds are received during the year, section 68 does not apply.3. The assessee bears the onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the parties from whom credits appear in its books. This can be discharged by filing documents such as ITRs, balance sheets, board resolutions, confirmations, ledger accounts, auditor's reports, and bank statements.4. The appellate authority should not admit additional evidence without remanding the matter to the AO for verification and comments, to ensure procedural fairness and proper adjudication.5. In cases where advances are shown as credits from companies with no business activity or legitimate income, the AO is justified in scrutinizing the genuineness and creditworthiness and may treat such credits as unexplained if the assessee fails to discharge the onus.6. The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions under section 68 in respect of share capital and share premium where no fresh funds were credited during the year and the source was explained through earlier credits and journal entries.7. The Tribunal remanded the issue relating to advances against projects for fresh consideration due to procedural irregularity in admitting fresh evidence without AO's verification.