TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (9) TMI 45
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,82,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer ignoring the fact that statement made u/s 131 givers by Shri Kamal Khetan retracted after long gap of more than 2 years, making inordinate delay of 2 years thus deserves to be rejected as the same was an afterthought on the part of the Assessee ? 3. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the stove grounds be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.- 4. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground and/or add new grounds which may be necessary. 3. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal in C.O.No. 77/Mum/2019. 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in Law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Learned Assessing in reopening the assessment u/s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of financing and investment activities and trading in fabrics and cloths, filed its return of income for AY 2009-10 on 28/09/2009 declaring total lo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pector of his office to examine where about of the bank address of Bank of Rajasthan and the Inspector visited the premises and noticed that Bank of Rajasthan has been taken over by the ICICI Bank Ltd. Accordingly, a letter was issued to the Principal Officer of ICICI Bank, calling for information u/s.133(6) of the Act, in respect of bank statement for the period from 01/04/2008 to 31/03/2015, for which the bank has replied that the bank statement, for the above period cannot be furnished, because the number of accounts furnished in your letter does not match with bank account number begin with ICICI bank. Thereafter, the assessee was given a show-cause to produce, the complete bank account statements for the period from 01/04/2008 to 31/03/2015, for which, the assesee has filed complete set of documents, including bank statement for the relevant period. Further, the AO issued summons to the promoter of Sunteck group shri Kamal Khetan and recorded his statement of oath u/s 131 of the I.T.Act, 1961, in respect of investments and share premium collected from various parties and such statement has been reproduced at page no. 7 to 16 of assessment order. 6. The AO, after considering....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, credit found in the form of share capital and share premium received from allotment of shares by discharging its onus cast upon u/s 68 of the I.T.Act, 1961, in order to prove identity, genuineness of transactions and credit worthiness of the parties and accordingly, by relied upon various judicial precedents, including the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suamati Dayal vs CIT (995) 2014 ITR 801 and also decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Nova promoters & Finlease Pvt.Ltd. (2012) 18 taxmann.com 2017 held that the assesee has failed to conclusively prove receipt of share premium as a genuine transaction in light of provision section 68 of the I.T.Act, 1961 and accordingly, made additions of Rs. 9,00,00,000/- u/s 68 of the I.T.Act, 1961. 7. Aggrieved, by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before, the ld. CIT(A), the assessee had challenged reopening of assessment on the ground that the AO has reopened assessment on mechanical manner on the basis of information received from DIT(I&CI), without application of his mind on the issue in light of return filed by the assessee. The assessee had also taken....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e case was just processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. In view of this, there was hardly any information on record, which could have explained the huge quantum of share premium introduced during the year under consideration. The A.O, has also noted that the appellant is a new company and barely had the financial strength to support the quantum of share premium, as has been received. 8.3 It is a matter of record that the copy of [he reasons recorded for reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the Act were duly provided 10 the appellant company. During the course of the appellate proceedings, the appellant company has filed an objection, vide letter dated 11.08.2016 for the reopening of assessment. This objection has been duly disposed of by The A.O., vide his office fetter dated 16.08.2016. Thus, the A.O. has meticulously followed the due procedure for re-opening of the assessment u/s 147 of the Act, which can't be faulted with. 8.4 The section 147 of the Act authorizes and permits, the Assessing Officer to assess or reassess income chargeable to tax, if he has reason to believe that income for any assessment year has escaped assessment. The word 'reasons' in the phrase ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... but for which the AO, could initiate the reassessment proceedings. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shri Krishna P. Ltd. 221 ITR 538, 549 that every disclosure is not and cannot be Treated to be a true and full disclosure. A disclosure may be a false one or a true one. It may be a full disclosure or it may not be. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a partial disclosure may very often be a misleading one. Therefore, what is required is a full and true disclosure of all material facts necessary for making assessment for that year. 8.9 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. VS. ITO 236 ITR 34, 35 (SC) has held that for determining whether initiation of reassessment proceedings was valid, it has only to be seen whether there was prima facie some material on the basis of which the department could reopen the case. It further held that the sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered at this stage. 8.10 The present case is also not one of change of opinion. The question of change of opinion arises, when the AO forms an opinion and decides not to make an addition and holds that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isclosure". 8.14 Further, in the case of Piaggio Vehicles P. ltd. YS. DCIT 290 ITR 377 (Bom), the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court held that in a case of reopening after 4 years subsequent 10 scrutiny assessments, contradiction was discovered between Tax Audit report and Return of income, it was a case of omission and /or failure on the part of its income. It is also held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that facts which could have been found by the ITO by further probing arc covered under failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts. 8.15 In the case of Coca Cola India Vs. ACIT &Or& (2009)221 CTR 0225 : (2009) 17 DTR 0066 : (2009) 309 ITR 0194 ; (2009) 177 TAXMAN 0103, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that notice u/s 147 should be held as bad in law, only if extraneous or absurd reasons are recorded by the AO, R was further held by the Hon'ble Court that whether or not the material should be finally taken into account for reassessment is a separate matter, which has to be dealt with during the course of reassessment proceedings. The relevant portion of the judgment in this regard is reproduced as under: - "Objection of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 8.17 Thus, there is no denying of the fact that the A.O had in his possession, credible information, which prima facie led to the formation of a belief that income has escaped assessment in the case of the appellant company. Therefore, in my considered opinion, reopening of assessment was in accordance with the provisions of section 147 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, this Ground of Appeal NO.1 of the appellant company is dismissed. 9. Insofar as, additions made towards share capital u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the ld. CIT(A) after considering relevant submission of the assessee and also by relied upon plethora of judgments, including the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT, 216 CTR 195, held that the assessee had filed enormous details to prove identity, genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of parties, but it was the AO who had failed to investigate the case properly, to rebutte details filed by the assessee to come to the conclusion that the credit in form of share capital is unexplained credit within the meaning of section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) had also discussed the issue in light of d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as taken over M/s AkshunyaEnergy Private limited through M/s Eskay Infrastructure Private Ltd ( a concern of Sunteck Group) 12.19 In view of these circumstances, it is factually incorrect to adversely interpret the statements of Shri Kamal Khetan & Shri Vikas Sanklecha, which are not relevant for the current assessment year i.e. A.Y. 2009-10. It is pertinent to note that neither Shri Kamal Khetan nor Shri Vikas Sankleeha, had any locusstandi in A.Y. 2009-10, in relation 10 the impugned j companies. In fact, in all the statements recorded of Shri Kamal Khetan& Shri Vikas Sanklecha are referring to events, which have happened after the current assessment year under consideration. 12.20 The above observations are further reinforced from the fact that Shri Kamal Khetan has not made any disclosure for the A,Y. 2009-10, the current assessment year, under consideration. At the cost of repetition, it is stated that Shri Kamal Khetan has made a disclosure of Rs. 47.6 Crore relevant to A.Y. 2010-11, A.Y, 201243 & A.Y. 2013-14. 12.21 Further, the AO, has without bringing on record any material evidence held that the Impugned 5 companies including the appellant are s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itted that valuation is a consideration for the investor and not for the Revenue, especially in the light of the fact that the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) were introduced in the statue w.e.f. 01.04.2013 and have not been given retrospective effect. Thus, as per the Appellant, the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) are applicable from the A.Y, 2013-14 and onwards. Accordingly, it has been submitted that the A.Q, ought to have considered the law as it was in force during A-Y.2009-10. It has also been emphasized, during the appellate proceedings that even the first proviso appended 10 section 68 of the Act, which requires the investor also, to satisfactory explain the nature and source of the credits was inserted w.e.f 01.04.2013 i.e. from A.Y, 2013-14 and hence the same is not applicable for the present assessment year, viz. A.Y. 2009-10. 12.25 As regards the notices issued under section 133(6) of the Act are concerned, the Appellant Company has stated that due to time lag certain persons might have left the place and for this no responsibility ca be fastened on the appellant. It has been stated that the appellant has furnished the following details to the A.O., regardi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on many other decisions in support of its contention that no such addition could have been made by the assessing officer in the light of the fact that statue was amended with the proviso appended to section 68 w.e.f. A.Y.2013-14 and it WAS not a retrospective amendment. 12. 29 Another objection of the A.O. contained in the assessment order is that the bank of the appellant company has failed to provide the bank statement of the appellant company, which was requisitioned under section 133(6) of The Act. As far as the issue of bank statement is concerned, the appellant company has supplied the same to the A.O., during the course of assessment proceedings, itself. In fact the A.O. has made observations in the assessment order based on the bank statements provided by the appellant company. Hence, no adverse inference can be drawn by the A.O. on this issue. 12.30 The A.O. has erred in relying on the statements of Shri Kamal Khetan& Shri Vikas Sanklecha for making addition on account of share premium u/s 68 of the Act, for the current year under consideration. The A.O. has failed to appreciate that the statements of Shri Kamal Khetan& Shri Vikas Sanklecha relate to even....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re should sufficient and adequate material on records for making any addition. * During the assessment year there was not purchases and sales of properly and assesses profit & Loss account shows very clearly that there was not deaf in immovable property during the year. * The statement given by Paras Porwal is retreated by him on 26 July 2013 and he said retraction confirmed on 29-04-2014 vide affidavit. * The Ld. A.O did not bring any calculation and supporting evidences on records that how to derived this amount and how to earn this income from assessee. * Addition made on a statement which was retreated by party cannot concluded as reliable evidences. 6.2 I have gone through the assessment order and the submissions of the appellant. I find that the addition of Rs. 28,60,00,000/- was made solely on the basis of the statement of Shri Paras Porwal. The appellant has contested the addition on the ground that Shri Paras Porwal is not connected with the firm (appellant)'. As per the appellant, Shri Paras Porwal has no locus standi as far as the affairs of the appellant is concerned. The Assessing Officer on the other hand claimed that a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s in doubt. As regards genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of parties, the AO has brought out clear facts to the effect that the assessee could not discharge its onus in respect of creditworthiness. Although, the subscribers have filed their acknowledgment of income tax return, but profit declared for the year under consideration is either nil or negligible when compared to the huge amount of share capital invested in the assessee company. The CIT(A) without appreciating these facts, simply deleted additions made by the AO towards share capital and premium u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Konark Structural Engineers Pvt Ltd vs. DCIT (2018) 257 Taxmann.com 262(SC). 12. The learned AR for the assessee submitted that the ld. CIT(A) had rightly deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer towards share capital amounting to Rs. 9,00,00,000/- u/s. 68 of the I.T.Act, 1961, because the assessee has discharged primary onus of proving identity, genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of parties. The AR further submitted that although the Assessing Officer has accepted identity....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ditors, but sum so received from the creditors cannot be regarded as undisclosed income of the assessee. The assessee has further relied upon the following judicial precedents: a) CIT vs. Green Infra Ltd (2017) 292 CTR 233(Bombay) b) CIT vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt Ltd.(2017) 394 ITR 680(Bombay) c) CIT vs. Goa Sponge and Power Ltd Tax Appeal No. 16 of 2012 (Bombay High Court) d) CIT vs. Creative World Telefilms Ltd 333 ITR 100 (Bom- High Court) e) CIT vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd 216 CTR 195 (SC) f) CIT vs. Steller Investment Ltd 251ITR 263 (SC) g) SDB Estate Pvt Ltd vs. ITO ITA No.584/M/2015 h) CIT vs. Expo Globe India Ltd 361 ITR(0147 (Del-High Court) i) CIT vs. Victory Spinning Mills Ltd (2014) 90 CCH 55 (Mad -High Court) j) CIT vs. Dwarkadhish Investment (P) Ltd (2011) 330 ITR 298 (Del-High Court) k) CIT vs. Nishan Indo Commerce Ltd 101 DTR 0413 (Cal - High Court) l) CIT v. Vacmet Packaging (India) Pvt Ltd (2014) 88 CCH 065 (All-HC) m) CIT vs. Gangeshwari Metal Pvt Ltd (2014) 361 ITR 10 (Del-High Court) n) ACIT vs. Venkateshwar Ispat Pvt Ltd (2010) 31....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... investments and share capital in the above mentioned five companies. He, further stated that transactions of investments and share capital were handled by the old management and hence, he was not in a position to offer any comments on the admission made by the old management, in respect of share capital and share premium. In the said statement, in reply to question No.11, shri Kamal Khetan, once again stated that he was unaware as to the basis on which, shri Vikas Sankhlecha has stated that these five companies are Shell Company. He had also asked for cross-examination of shri Vikas Sankhlecha for the facts mentioned in his statement. 14. The Ld. AO has made additions towards share capital and share premium, on the ground that although, the assesee has filed various details to prove identity, genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of the parties but, on perusal of details filed by the assessee, it was noticed that the assessee has failed to establish transactions between the parties are genuine in nature and also the subscriber to the share capital are having capacity to explain huge investments in assessee company. According to the AO, mere furnishing confirmation le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see, whether the assessee has discharged its initial onus cast upon u/s 68 of the I.T.Act, 1961 or not. In this case, the assesee has filed various details, including share application form, copy of declaration, board resolution, bank statement of Investor Company, PAN card, acknowledgment of return of income, financial statement of Investor Company, form No. 2 for allotment of equity shares and bank statement reflecting, the amount received through banking channels. Once, the assessee has discharged its initial onus by filing various details, then the onus shift to the AO to carry out further verification, in the light of evidences filed by the assessee to ascertain true nature of transactions between the parties before, he come to the conclusion that the transactions between the parties are genuine or not. In this case although, the AO has issued 133(6) notices to the parties, no further enquiry has been conducted, including issue of summons u/s 131. No doubt, none of the investors companies have responded to 133(6) notices issued by the AO, but fact of the matter is when, assessee has filed complete set of documents, including name and address of the parties, it is for the AO....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the case of Kishanchand Chellaram vs CIT 1980 125 ITR 713 (SC), where it was held that when, third party information is relied upon to draw an adverse inference against the assessee, the same needs to be provided and also opportunity of cross examination shall be given, if such opportunity is availed by the assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries Ltd Vs CCE, Kolkata II in Appeal No 4228 of 2006 has vide order dated 02.09.2015 had also upheld a similar legal position and held that not allowing the assessee to cross-examine the witnesses by the adjudicating the authority, though the statements and those witnesses were made the basis of the impugned order is a serious flaw, which makes the order nullity in, as much as, it amount to violation of principle of natural justice, because of which, the assessee was adversely affected. Therefore, on this count also the additions made by the AO cannot be sustained. 16. Coming to the other aspect of the issue, the AO has invoked the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the I.T. Act, 1961. We find that the said provision has been inserted by Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f 10.04.2013, where it provides that where ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n. Even otherwise, assuming for a moment above provisions are applicable for the year under consideration, in order to apply said amended provisions, the AO has to prove that the assessee has not proved capacity of the investors and also not offered any justification for issue of shares at premium. In this case, from the facts on record, it is clear that the assessee has proved identity and genuineness of the transactions by filing necessary evidences. The assessee has filed valuation report from registered valuer as per which the share price of the company is over and above premium charged by the assessee. Therefore, we are of the considered view that provisions of section 56(2)(viib) has no application. 17. Coming to the case laws relied upon by the assessee. The assessee has relied upon plethora of judgements, including the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Lovely Exports Pvt Ltd (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC). In the case laws relied upon by the assessee, the issue has been dealt as under:- CIT vs. Goa Sponge and Power Ltd (13/02/2012) Tax Appeal No. 16 of 2012 (High Court-Bombay) "Once the authorities have got all the details, including t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... income of assessee company." CIT vs. Steller Investment Ltd (2001) 251 ITR 263 (SC) (civil appeal) "That the increase in subscribed capital of the respondent company could not be a device of converting black money into white with the help of formation of an investment company, on the round that, even if it be assumed that the subscribers to the increased capital were not genuine, tinder no circumstances could the amount of share capital be regarded as un disclosed income, an appeal was taken by the Department to th e Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal holding that the Tribunal had come to a conclusion on facts and no interference was called for." CIT vs. Nav Bharat Duolex Ltd (2013) 35 Taxmann.com289 (All- High Court) "We have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties. CIT(A) found that five companies subscribing the equity shares amounting to Rs. 25,00.000/- were identified and they had submitted their bank statements, cash extracts and returns filing receipts. As such identity of the share applicant companies and purchase of share had been proved by the assessee. Supreme Court in the cases of CIT v. Steller Inv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... regards the creditworthiness of the creditors, it would have had to discharge the onus which had shifted on to it. A bald assertion by the Assessing Officer that the credits were a circular route adopted by the assessee to plough back its own undisclosed income into its accounts, could be of n o avail. The Revenue was required to prove this allegation. An allegation by itself which is based on assumption will not pass muster in law. The Revenue would be required to bridge the gap between the suspicions and proof in order to bring home this allegation. The Tribunal without adverting to the principle laid stress on the fact that despite opportunities, the assessee and/or the creditors had not proved the genuineness of the transaction. Based on this it construed the intentions of the assessee as being mala fide. The Tribunal ought to have analysed the material rather than be burdened by the fact that some of the creditors had chosen not to make a personal appearance before the Assessing Officer. If the Assessing Officer had any doubt about the material placed on record, which was largely bank statements of the creditors and their income-tax returns, it could gather the necessary info....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itive material or evidence to indicate that the shareholders were benamidars or fictitious persons or that any part o f the share capital represented the company's own income from undisclosed sources. It was nobody's case that the non resident Indian company was a bogus or non-existent company or that the amount subscribed by the company by way of share subscription was in fact the money of the assessee. The assessee had established the identity of the investor who had provided the share subscription an d that the transaction was genuine. Though the assessee's contention was that the creditworthiness of the creditor was also established, in this case, the establishment of the identity of the investor alone was to be seen. Thus, the addition was rightly deleted." CIT vs. Shree Rama Multi Tech Ltd (2013) 34 Taxmann.com177 (Guj-HC) "It is noted that Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal have duly considered issue and having found complete details of the receipts of share application money, along with the form names and addresses, PAN and other requisite details, they found complete absence of the grounds noted for invoking the provision of sectio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ordinate Bench of ITAT vide its order dated 03.05.2019 in the case of Shree Laxmi Estate Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 6557/Mum2017 for A.Y. 2013-14 had considered the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NRA Iron & Steel P. Ltd. and held that the facts of the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court are entirely different, where on the basis of facts of that case Hon'ble Supreme Court came to the conclusion that mere furnishing of certain documents is not sufficient enough and what is relevant is all three ingredients, i.e. identity, genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of the parties should be proved beyond doubt. We find that in the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court the parties never responded to 133(6) notices. The AO has carried out inquiries by issuing notices u/s. 133(6), for which none of the companies have replied. None of the companies produced bank statements to establish source of funds for making such huge investments in shares, even though they were declaring a very meagre income in the return. None of the investors appeared before the AO, but merely sent response through Dak. In this case, from the facts on record, it is clear that the assessee has fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ath or correspondingly verify the same through the Assessing Offficers of the concerned loan creditors through the internal source of the department. The ld AO did not do either of these in the instant case and merely disregarded the evidences submitted on record before him both by the assessee as well as by the loan creditors directly to him. The written submissions filed by the ld DR in this regard is repetition of various contentions already available on record by the lower authorities, apart from placing reliance on certain decisions. We find that both the aforesaid loan additions were confirmed by the ld CITA by placing reliance on the decision taken by his predecessor in Asst Year 2012-13. We find that this tribunal in assessee's own case for the Asst Year 2012-13 in ITA No. 5954/Mum/2016 dated 29.12.2017 in respect of loan transactions of entities controlled by Shri Pravin Kumar Jain and others had elaborately dealt this issue and held as under:- "5. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. The AO made addition towards unsecured loans received from Josh Trading Company Pvt Ltd and Vira....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... lies on the assessee. It is well settled legal position that the assessee has to discharge 3 main ingredients in order to discharge the initial burden of proof, i.e. the identity of the creditor, the genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of the creditors. Once the assessee discharges initial burden placed upon him, then the burden todis prove the said claim shifts upon the AO. In this case, the assessee has discharged his onus cast u/s 68 by filing identity of the creditors, genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of the parties which is evident from the fact that the assessee has furnished financial statements of the creditors wherein the said transaction has been disclosed in the relevant financial years. We further notice that the assessee also filed financial statements of the creditors which are enclosed in paper book filed. On perusal of the financial statements filed by the assessee, we find that both the companies are active in the website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs. This fact has been further supported by the letter of AO wherein the AO has accepted that both companies, viz. Josh Trading Company Pvt Ltd and Viraj Mercantile Pvt Ltd are active in M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he basis that the addition of the proviso to section 68is M/s Shree Laxmi Developers immaterial and does not change the interpretation of section 68 both before and after the adding of the proviso. In view of the matter the three essential tests while confirming the section 68 laid down by the Court namely the genuineness of the transaction, identity and the capacity of the investor have all been examined by the impugned order of the Tribunal and on fact it was found satisfied. Further it was a submission on behalf of the Revenue that such large amount of share premium gives rise to suspicion on the genuineness (identity) of the shareholders, i.e., they are bogus. The Apex Court in a case in this context to the preamended section 68 has held that where the revenue urges that the amount of share application money has been received from bogus shareholders then it is for the Incometax Officer to proceed by reopening the assessment of such shareholder and assessing them to tax in accordance with law. It does not entitle the revenue to add the same to the assessee's income as unexplained cash credit." [Para 3] 8. The assessee has also relied upon the decision of Ho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... considered the fact that the individuals, who advanced loans had no financial strength to lend such huge sum of money to the assessee, that too, without any collateral security without interest and without a lender agreement. Under these facts, the Hon'ble Court held that mere establishing of their identity and the fact that the amounts have been transferred through cheque payment does not by itself mean that the transactions are genuine. In this case, the assessee has furnished all evidences and also the parties personally responded to the notices M/s Shree Laxmi Developers issued by the AO u/s 133(6) by filing various details, therefore, case law relied upon by the Ld.DR cannot be applicable to the facts of the present case. 11. In this view of the matter and considering the ratio of the case laws discussed above, we are of the considered view that the assessee has discharged identity, genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of the parties. Therefore, there is no reason for the AO to make addition towards loan u/s 68 of the Act. Hence, we direct the AO to delete addition made towards loans alongwith interest u/s 68 of the Act. 8.1. We find that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gh confirmed the fact of having made investment in share application money in NRA Iron & Steel Pvt Ltd , but had not filed their bank statements to prove the immediate source of credit available to them for making the said investment. 8.1.1. In the instant case before us, the ld AO did not issue any summons u/s 131 of the Act or make further enquiries to examine the veracity of the evidences filed on record before him by the assessee as well as by the loan creditors in response to notice u/s 133(6) of the Act. Moreover, all the loan creditors had duly furnished their respective bank statements proving the immediate source of credit for them to justify that they had sufficient creditworthiness to advance loan to the assessee company. From the perusal of the balance sheet of all investor companies, all the loan creditors had sufficient own funds in their kitty which prove their creditworthiness to advance loan to the assessee company. As has been stated hereinabove, the most excruciating point of difference in facts vis a vis the facts of the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court supra that the investor companies had not even furnished their bank statements to prove their im....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Year 2012-13 in assessee's own case has been reversed by this tribunal vide its order dated 29.12.2017 referred to supra. In view of our aforesaid findings in the facts and circumstances of the case and respectfully following the decision of this tribunal in assessee's own case for Asst Year 2012-13, we hold that the assessee company had duly proved the nature and source of credit in the form of unsecured loan and had duly satisfied the three necessary ingredients of section 68 of the Act viz, the identity of the loan creditors , creditworthiness of loan creditors and genuineness of loan transactions. Hence we direct the ld AO to delete the addition made in the sums of Rs. 50 lacs and Rs. 25 lacs towards unsecured loan u/s 68 of the Act. Accordingly, the Grounds 1 to 6 raised by the assessee are allowed." 19. In the case of PCIT vs. Hi-Tech Residency Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 257 Taxman 335, Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered identical issue and held that where an assessee company had discharged the onus of establishing identity, genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of investors, no additions could be made u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. We, further, noted that although the ....