AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 1701
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ication money being added as cash credit u/s 68 of the I T Act, 1961. The addition is not called for and hence the same be deleted. iii) For that in the facts and circumstances the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 75,193/- u/s 14A of the I T Act, 1961. The disallowance is not called for and hence the same be reversed. iv) The assessee craves leave to produce additional evidences in terms of Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. v) For that the interest computed u/s 234A/B/C/D of the I T Act, 1961 is over charged and wrongly calculated and or is not applicable to the assessee case it be directed to re-compute the interest as per law. vi) The assessee craves leave to press new, additional grounds of appeal or modify, withdraw any of the above grounds at the time of hearing of the appeal. 3. The ground nos. 1 and 2 raised by the assessee relate to addition of Rs. 1,95,00,000/- on account of share application money being added as cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. The brief facts qua the issue are that during the assessment year 2012-13, assessee(M/s Bidit ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has reiterated the findings of the Assessing Officer and confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. The Ld. DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue stated before us that during the assessment proceedings one departmental inspector was deputed by the assessing officer to verify the above mentioned registered offices of the share allottees as per the latest address available in MCA(ROC) site. But the Inspector reported to the Assessing Officer that these companies are neither traceable nor their credentials were ascertainable from the neighbor individuals/ concerns therefore identity of these share subscribing companies have not been proved. Hence addition made by AO must be sustained. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is also based on logical conclusion therefore his order should be confirmed.The Ld. DR argued that mere documentary evidences were not sufficient to discharge the genuineness of the transactions and that the personal appearance of Directors of share applicants was indeed a pre-requisite to ascertain whether the three ingredie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent year 2013-14. With this background, now we shall proceed to examine in the assessee`s case under consideration, whether assessee has discharged his onus toprove, prima facie, the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share capital and share premium received by it from share subscribers companies. 9. We note that the assessee company had raised share application money for Rs. 1,95,00,000/- during the year under consideration. This capital was raised by way of issue of 97,500 shares of Rs. 10/- at a premium of Rs. 190/- per share. The ld. Assessing Officer disallowed the entire shares application money received from the share applicants during the year under consideration on the ground that directors of shareholder companies failed to appear before him. These shares were issued to the following shareholders: SN Name Address PAN Total Amount 1 C. G. Securities Ltd. 2, Lal Bazar Street, Kolkata-700001 AABCC0181E 50,00,000 2 Waterlink Enclave Pvt. Ltd. 7, Swallow Lane, Kolkata-700001 AABCW1888Q 20,00,000 3 Linkup Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 8/1, Lal Bazar Street, Kolkata-700001 AACCL0197N 30,00,000 4 Dh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s company are available on pages 151-195 of the paper book. (b).Waterlink Enclave Private Limited: This Company invested a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- in the assessee company. The share application was made by account payee cheque. This company was incorporated on 20/01/2012 and was having company identification number U70109WB2012PTC172607. This company duly filed its return of income before ITO Ward 6(4), Kolkata and was having PAN: AABCW1888Q. This company was having a paid up capital with free reserves and surplus of Rs. 7,28,00,925/- as on 31/03/2012. The copy of the bank statement of the Company is duly available in the paper book. On examination of the bank statement it will be seen that there is no deposit of cash. The copy of the assessment order U/s.143(3) for AY 2012-13 is available in the paper book. The details of source of funds from which this company had made the share application are also available in the paper book. All the relevant documents for this company are available on pages 196-226 of the paper book. c).Linkup Infrastructure Private Limited: This Company invested a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- in the assessee company. The share application was made by accoun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the bank statement of the Company is duly available in the paper book. On examination of the bank statement it will be seen that there is no deposit of cash. The copy of the assessment order U/s.143(3) for AY 2012-13 is available in the paper book. The details of source of funds from which this company had made the share application are also available in the paper book. All the relevant documents for this company are available on pages 186-321 of the paper book. (f) Agarani Credit &Finvest Private Limited: This Company invested a sum of Rs. 35,00,000/- in the assessee company. The share application was made by account payee cheque. This company was incorporated on 10/07/1991 and was having company identification number U65999WB1991PTC052178. This company duly filed its return of income before ITO Ward 1(2), Kolkata and was having PAN: AACCA2350C. This company was having a paid up capital with free reserves and surplus of Rs. 69,14,38,512/- as on 31/03/2012 and Rs. 2,11,32,689/- as on 31/03/2011 respectively. The copy of the bank statement of the Company is duly available in the paper book. On examination of the bank statement it will be seen that there is no deposit of cash. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es etc. and the Form 18 furnished by the share applicants with the ROC duly proved the identity of the share subscribers. The Ld. AR thereafter invited our attention to the respective balance sheets of the share applicants to show that each of them had sufficient funds available at their disposal to make investment in the assessee company. Referring to the respective bank statements, it was further pointed out that the transactions were conducted through proper banking channel and that there were no cash deposits in any of the bank account of the share applicants. He also invited our attention to the explanation furnished by each of the share applicants regarding their source of funds. It was thus submitted that the fund flow position of the share applicant and not the profitability was the decisive criteria to examine the creditworthiness of the share applicants. Before we adjudicate as to whether the Ld. CIT(A)'s action is right or erroneous, let us look at section 68 of the Act and the judicial precedents on the issue at hand. Section 68 under which, the addition has been made by the AO reads as under: "68. Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee mai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Orissa Corpn. (P) Ltd. (supra) 159 ITR 78 and the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of Dy. CIT v. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360 /[2003] 127 Taxman 523, has held that onus of the assessee (in whose books of account credit appears) stands fully discharged if the identity of the creditor is established and actual receipt of money from such creditor is proved. In case, the Assessing Officer is dissatisfied about the source of cash deposited in the bank accounts of the creditors, the proper course would be to assess such credit in the hands of the creditor (after making due enquiries from such creditor). In arriving at this conclusion, the Hon'ble Court has further stressed the presence of word "may" in section 68. Relevant observations at pages 369 and 370 of this report are reproduced hereunder:- "Merely because summons issued to some of the creditors could not be served or they failed to attend before the Assessing Officer, cannot be a ground to treat the loans taken by the assessee from those creditors as non-genuine in view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Orissa Corporation [1986]....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the subject matter of transfer was the asset belonging to the transferor/donors themselves. There is enough material on record which goes to show that there were various credits in the bank accounts of the donors, prior to the transaction of gifts, which undisputedly belonging to the respective donors themselves, in their own rights. No part of the credits in the said bank' accounts was generated from the appellant and/or from its associates, in any manner. The certificates issued by the banks are construable as evidence about the ownership of the transferors or their respective bank accounts, as per s.4 of the Bankers' Books evidence Act 1891, which read as under: "4. Where an extract of account was duly signed by the agent of the bank and implicit in its was a certificate that it was a true copy of an entry contained in one of the ordinary books of the bank and was made in the usual and ordinary course of business and that such book was in the custody of the bank, it was held admissible in evidence. Radheshyam v. Safiyabai Ibrahim AIR 1988 Bom.361 : 1987 Mah. 725: 1987 Bank J 552." In view of the position of law as discussed above, it is always open for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the same may be extended to the transactions, which have taken place between the creditor and his sub-creditor. Thus, while the Assessing Officer is under section 68, free to look into the source(s) of the creditor and/or of the sub-creditor, the burden on the assessee under section 68 is definitely limited. This limit has been imposed by section 106 of the Evidence Act which reads as follows: "Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge.-When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden) of proving that fact is upon him. " ******** What, thus, transpires from the above discussion is that white section 106 of the Evidence Act limits the onus of the assessee to the extent of his proving the source from which he has received the cash credit, section 68 gives ample freedom to the Assessing Officer to make inquiry not only into the source(s)of the creditor but also of his (creditor's) sub-creditors and prove, as a result, of such inquiry, that the money received by the assessee, in the form of loan from the creditor, though routed through the sub-creditors, actually belongs to, or was of, the assessee himself. In other wor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amount and happened to keep the same in the bank, the said amount cannot be treated as income of the assessee from undisclosed source. In other words, the genuineness as well as the creditworthiness of a creditor have to be adjudged vis-a-vis the transactions, which he has with the assessee. The reason why we have formed the opinion that it is not the business of the assessee to find out the actual source or sources from where the creditor has accumulated the amount, which he advances, as loan, to the assessee is that so far as an assessee is concerned, he has to prove the genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness of the creditor vis-a-vis the transactions which had taken place between the assessee and the creditor and not between the creditor and the sub-creditors, for, it is not even required under the law for the assessee to try to find out as to what sources from where the creditor had received the amount, his special knowledge under section 106 of the Evidence Act may very well remain confined only to the transactions, which he had' with the creditor and he may not know what transaction(s) had taken place between his creditor and the sub-creditor... " ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... such evidence on record, the Assessing Officer could not have treated the said amounts as income derived by the appellant from undisclosed sources. The learned Tribunal seriously fell into error in treating the said amounts as income derived by the appellant from. undisclosed sources merely on the failure of the sub-creditors to prove their creditworthiness." 16. In the case of CIT VsJalan Hard Coke Ltd (95 taxmann.com 330), the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court noted that the assessee had furnished the details of the share applicants but expressed its inability to produce the share applicants before the AO for examination. The Hon'ble High Court held that mere nonappearance of share applicants could not be reason enough to assess the share application monies received by way of unexplained cash credit. The SLP filed by the Revenue against this judgment has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The relevant extracts of the judgment are as follows: "6.2 Taking into consideration the aforesaid decision we are of the considered opinion that company cannot be assessed for the income tax to find out the person who has applied as share holder. The view of taken by the Tribu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s and permanent account numbers. It has found that the assessee's burden stood discharged and so, no addition to his total income on account of cash credit was called for. In view of this finding, we find that the Tribunal was right in reversing the order of the AA C, setting aside the assessment order." 19. Further the jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in the case of S.K. Bothra& Sons, HUF v. Income-tax Officer, Ward- 46(3), Kolkata (347 ITR 347)also held as follows: "15. It is now a settled law that while considering the question whether the alleged loan taken by the assessee was a genuine transaction, the initial onus is always upon the assessee and if no explanation is given or the explanation given by the appellant is not satisfactory, the Assessing Officer can disbelieve the alleged transaction of loan. But the law is equally settled that if the initial burden is discharged by the assessee by producing sufficient materials in support of the loan transaction, the onus shifts upon the Assessing Officer and after verification, he can call for further explanation from the assessee and in the process, the onus may again shift from the Assessing Officer to assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee and the Commissioner in the light of the evidence and the relevant law. 10. We find considerable force of the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has merely noticed that since the summons issued before assessment returned unserved and no one came forward to prove. Therefore, it shall be assumed that the assessee failed to prove the existence of the creditors or for that matter the creditworthiness. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has taken the trouble of examining of all other materials and documents, viz., confirmatory statements, invoices, challans and vouchers showing supply of bidis as against the advance. Therefore, the attendance of the witnesses pursuant to the summons issued, in our view, is not important. The important is to prove as to whether the said cash credit was received as against the future sale of the product of the assessee or not. When it was found by the Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) on facts having examined the documents that the advance given by the creditors have been established the Tribunal should not have ignored this -fact finding. In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f 2011) dated 21.09.2011 wherein the Court held as follows: "In our opinion, in such circumstances, the Assessing officer of the assessee cannot take the burden of assessing the profit and loss account of the creditor when admittedly the creditor himself is an income tax assessee. After getting the PAN number and getting the information that the creditor is assessed under the Act, the Assessing officer should enquire from the Assessing Officer of the creditor as to the genuineness" of the transaction and whether such transaction has been accepted by the Assessing officer of the creditor but instead of adopting such course, the Assessing officer himself could not enter into the return of the creditor and brand the same as unworthy of credence. So long it is not established that the return submitted by the creditor has been rejected by its Assessing Officer, the Assessing officer of the assessee is bound to accept the same as genuine when the identity of the creditor and the genuineness" of transaction through account payee cheque has been established. We find that both the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) and the Tribunal below followed the well-accepte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Cl. T. vs. M/s. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2008) 216 CTR 195 allowed the appeal by holding -that share capital/premium of Rs. 24,00,000/- received from the investors was not liable to be treated under Section 68 as unexplained credits and it should not be taxed in the hands of the appellant company. As indicated earlier, the Tribunal below dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and after going through the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Cl. T. vs. M/s. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. [supra], we are at one with the Tribunal below that the point involved in this appeal is covered by the said Supreme Court decision in favour of the assessee and thus, no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. The appeal is devoid of any substance and is dismissed. 24. Our attention was also drawn to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta in the case of Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/s. Nishan Indo Commerce Ltd in ITA No. 52 of 2011 dated 2 December, 2013 wherein the Court held as follows: "The Assessing Officer was of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der, in shares of the Assessee Company remained unexplained, liability could not be foisted on the company. The concerned shareholders would have to explain the source of their fund. The learned Commissioner on considering the submissions of the, respective parties and considering the materials, found that the Assessing Officer had applied the provisions of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act arbitrarily and illegally and in any case without giving the assessee adequate opportunity of representation and/or hearing. Learned Tribunal agreed with the factual findings of the learned Commissioner and accordingly the learned Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue and affirmed the decision of the learned Commissioner. Mr. Dutta appearing on behalf of the petitioners cited judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ruby Traders and Exporters Limited reported in 236 (2003) ITR 3000 where a Division Bench of this Court held that when Section 68 is resorted to, it is incumbent on the assessee company to prove and establish the identity of the subscribers, their credit worthiness and the genuineness of the transaction. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of account payee cheques and the assessee also disclosed the complete list of shareholders with their complete addresses and GIR Numbers for the relevant assessment years in which share application was contributed. It further appears that all the payments were made by the applicants by account payee cheques. It appears from the Assessing Officers order that his grievance was that the assessee was not willing to produce the parties who had allegedly advanced the fund. In our opinion, both the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal below were justified in holding that after disclosure of the full particulars indicated above, the initial onus of the assessee was shifted and it was the duty of the Assessing Officer to enquire whether those particulars were correct or not and if the Assessing Officer was of the view that the particulars supplied were insufficient to detect the real share applicants, to ask for further particulars. The Assessing Officer has not adopted either of the aforesaid courses but has simply blamed the assessee for not producing those share applicants. In our view, in the case before us so long the Assessing Offi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....share capital with premium from share applicants. The nature of receipt towards share capital is seen from the entries passed in the respective balance sheets of the companies as share capital and investments. In respect of source of credit, the assessee has to prove the three necessary ingredients i.e. identity of share applicants, genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of share applicants. For proving the identity of share applicants, the assessee furnished the name, address, PAN of share applicants together with the copies of balance sheets and Income Tax Returns. With regard to the creditworthiness of share applicants, as we noted supra, these Companies are having capital in several crores of rupees and the investment made in the assessee company is only a small part of their capital. These transactions are also duly reflected in the balance sheets of the share applicants, so creditworthiness is proved. Even if there was any doubt if any regarding the creditworthiness of the share applicants was still subsisting, then AO should have made enquiries from the AO of the share subscribers as held in the several judgments cited above, which has not been done, so no adverse ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....matter of examination by the income tax department in scrutiny proceedings. This fact has not been controverted by the Revenue before us. 30. We may gainfully refer to the judgment in the case of Pr. CIT Vs Paradise Inland Shipping (P) Ltd (84 taxmann.com 58) wherein the Bombay High Court had deleted similar addition on similar set of facts made on account of unexplained cash credits and the SLP filed by the Revenue against the judgment has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The relevant extracts of the judgment is as follows: "5. We have given our thoughtful considerations to the rival contentions of the learned Counsel and we have also gone through the records. The basic contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants revolves upon the stand taken by the Appellants whether the shareholders who have invested in the shares of the Respondents are fictitious or not. In this connection, the Respondents in support of their stand about the genuineness of the transaction entered into with such Companies has produced voluminous documents which, inter alia, have been noted at Para 3 of the Judgment of the CIT Appeals which reads thus : "The ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed in his individual books of accounts, then no addition could be made u/s 68 of the Act. The decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court is reported in (2018) 89 taxmann.com 80 (Guj HC). The SLP of the revenue against this judgment was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 32. We may gainfully refer to the following decisions of the Hon'ble High Court in the cases as under : (a) In the case of Pr. CIT Vs Chain House International (P) Ltd [2018] (98 taxmann.com 47)the AO had added the share application by way of unexplained cash credits was that the assessee was unable to give any justifiable reason for issuing shares at a premium. The Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court did not agree with this reasoning given by the AO for making addition u/s 68, holding as under: "Issuing the share at a premium was a commercial decision. It is the prerogative of the Board of Directors of a company to decide the premium amount and it is the wisdom of shareholder whether they want to subscribe the shares at such a premium or not. This was a mutual decision between both the companies. In day to day market, unless and until, the rates is fixed by any Govt. Authority or unless there is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... proceeding on the basis that the addition of the proviso to Section 68 of the Act is immaterial and does not change the interpretation of Section 68 of the Act both before and after the adding of the proviso. In any view of the matter the three essential tests while confirming the pre-proviso Section 68 of the Act laid down by the Courts 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 facts 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 Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd.(supra) in the context to the pre-amended Section 68 of the Act 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 Income Tax Officer to proceed by reopening the assessment of such shareholders 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. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....supra was distinguishable on facts as the said decision was rendered in the context of validity of revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act by the Learned Administrative Commissioner. This fact has already been addressed by this tribunal in the case of VSP Steel P Ltd supra. No decision whatsoever was rendered by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Raj mandir Estates P. ltd on merits of the addition and hence does not come to the rescue of the revenue in the facts of the instant case. 33. Instead, we find that the decision of the Hon'bleDelhi High Court in the case of CIT VsGangeshwari Metal (P) Ltd (ITA No. 597 of 2012) dated 21.01.2012 is of much relevance in the facts of the assessee's case. In this case the assessee had received share application money of Rs. 55.50 lacs during the year in question. The assessee filed the complete names, addresses of the share applicants, confirmatory letters from them, copies of bank statements of both the company as well as the share applicants and copies of share application forms. In spite of the aforesaid documentary evidences the AO held the explanation to be unacceptable and treated the share application as unexplai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he lines of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Lovely Exports Pvt Ltd (319 ITR 5). Accordingly, the addition made under Section 68 on account of share application was deleted. The relevant extracts of the judgment is as follows:- "As can be seen from the above extract, two types of cases have been indicated. One in which the Assessing Officer carries out the exercise which is required in law and the other in which the Assessing Officer 'sits back with folded hands' till the assessee exhausts all the evidence or material in his possession and then comes forward to merely reject the same on the presumptions. The present case falls in the latter category. Here the Assessing Officer after noting the facts, merely rejected the same. This would be apparent from the observations of the Assessing Officer in the assessment order to the following effect:- ''Investigation made by the Investigation Wing of the department clearly showed that this was nothing but a sham transaction of accommodation entry. The assessee was asked to explain as to why the said amount of Rs. 1,11,50,000/- may not be added to its income. In response, the assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and creditworthiness of the shareholders, thereafter in case such evidence is to be discarded or it is proved that it has "created" evidence, the Revenue is supposed to make thorough probe before it could nail the assessee and fasten the assessee with such a liability under s.68; A.O. failed to carry his suspicion to logical conclusion by further investigation and therefore addition under s.68 was not sustainable." 35. The SLP filed against the above decision has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 36. In the case of FinleasePvt Ltd. 342 ITR 169 (supra) in ITA 232/2012 judgementdt. 22.11.2012 at para 6 to 8/ it was held as follows. "6. This Court has considered the submissions of the parties. In this case the discussion by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) would reveal that the assessee has filed documents including certified copies issued by the ROC in relation to the share application affidavits of the directors, form 2 filed with the ROC by such applicants confirmations by the applicant for company's shares, certificates by auditors etc. Unfortunately, the Assessing Officer chose to base himself merely on the general inference to be drawn from....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rein for the sake of brevity. We find that the assessee had given the complete details about the share applicants clearly establishing their identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction proved beyond doubt and had duly discharged its onus in full. Nothing prevented the Learned AO to make enquiries from the assessing officers of the concerned share applicants for which every details were very much made available to him by the assessee. We find that the reliance placed by the Learned Ld. CIT(1) on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Lovely Exports (P) Ud reported in (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC) is very well founded, wherein, it has been very clearly held that the only obligation of the company receiving the share application money is to prove the existence of the shareholders and for which the assessee had discharged the onus of proving their existence and also the source of share application money received. 3.4. 1. We also find that the impugned issue is also covered by the decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs Roseberry Mercantile (P) Ltd in GA No. 3296 of 2010 ITAT No. 241 of 2010 dated 10.1.2011, wherein th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in their hands out of which Pay orders were obtained. Based on this, the Learned AO concluded that these shareholders do not have creditworthiness to invest in the assessee company and brought the entire sum of Rs. 57,00,000/- to tax as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 4.2. On first appeal, the Learned CIT(A) observed that entire share application monies of Rs. 57,00,000/- we received during the previous year 2004-05 relevant to Asst Year 200506 from 20 persons and the shares were allotted to them during the asst year under appeal. He observed that the assessee had furnished details of the share applicants giving the date wise receipts, mode of payment, amount, name, address, income tax returns, PA No. of share applicants along with their balance sheet. The Learned CITA also observed that the assessee in its reply to show cause notice before the Learned AO had requested him to use his power and authority for the physical appearance of the shareholders which was not exercised by the Learned AO. Instead the Learned AO continued to insist on the assessee to produce the shareholders before him. He ultimately concluded that the assessee had duly discharged its onus of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for hearing , none was present on behalf of the assessee. However, we find from the file that the assessee had filed a detailed paper book and written submissions. Hence the case is disposed off based on the arguments of the Learned DR and written submissions and paper book already available on record. The facts stated in the Learned CIT(A) were not controverted by the Learned DR before us. We find that the assessee had given the complete details about the share applicants clearly establishing their identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction proved beyond doubt and had duly discharged its onus in full. Nothing prevented the Learned AO to make enquiries from the assessing officers of the concerned share applicants for which every details were very much made available to him by the assessee. We find that the reliance placed by the Learned CITA on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vsLovelv Exports (p) Ltd reported in (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC) is very well founded, wherein, it has been very clearly held that the only obligation of the company receiving the share application money is to prove the existence of the shareholders and for which the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y emanated from the coffers of the assessee so as to enable it to be treated as the undisclosed income of the assessee. No substantial question of law arose. " 6.3. We find that the argument of the Learned DR to set aside this issue to the file of the Learned AO for verification of share subscribers would not serve any purpose as the ratio decided in the above cases is that in any case, no addition could be made in the hands of the recipient assessee. In view of the aforesaid findings and respectfully following the decision of the apex court (supra), Jurisdictional High Court (supra) and Delhi High Court (supra) , we find no infirmity in the order of the Learned CIT(A) and accordingly, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed." (c) In the case of ITO Wd.3(2) Kol, vs. M/s. Steel Emporium Ltdin ITA No.1061/Ko1/2012 dated 05-02-2016, this Tribunal held as follows: "10. We have heard both the rival parties and perused the materials available on record. The Ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the AO. Before us the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee raised share application money during the year from 25 applicants. The AO was furnished with the copy....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... following material at the time of assessment. a) Copy of share applications from the share applicants (copies enclosed) b) Copy of Form 2 filed with Registrar of Companies, West Bengal (copy enclosed) c) Copy of Form 18 about the Registered Office of the applicants for change of address subsequent to the date of allotment, i.e. 31.03.2009 (copies enclosed) d) Members register e) Share application & Allotment Register f) Copy of board resolution. g) Replies from Share applicants to the notice u/s. 133(6) issued to them by the AO seeking information and documents about the sources and to examine their identity, genuineness of the transaction and their creditworthiness. (copy enclosed). h) Copy of audited accounts. i) Copy of bank statements. j) Copy of Income tax acknowledgment of return filed for AY 2009- k) Copy of PAN Card. l) Details of sources of funds. m) Copy of covering letter for delivery of shares. n) Copy of master data as per ministry of Company Affairs records. o) Copy of Annual return. p) Copy of Memorandum and articles of Association. Finally the Ld. AR relied o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the assessments in the case of M/s. Navalco Commodities Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Shree ShyamTrexim Pvt. Ltd. for A. Y.2005-06 and AY.2004-05 respectively were completed by the I TO, Ward 9(4), Kolkata. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the AO was not justified in holding that the share applicant companies were not in existence. The assessment orders were completed on the address as provided by the appellant company in the course of assessment proceedings. It is not known as to how the AO's inspector had reported that the aforesaid companies were not in existence at the given address. Since the appellant company had provided sufficient documentary evidences in support of its claim of receipt of share application money, I am of the opinion that the no addition u/s.68 could be made in the hands of appellant company. On going through the various judicial pronouncements relied upon by the appellant, it is observed that the view taken as above is also supported by them. In view of above the AO is directed to delete the addition of Rs. 54,00,000/ -. The ground Nos. 2 and 3 are allowed, " 7. Aggrieved by the order of CIT{A) the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e share application received was fully explained by the assessee. The assessee had discharged its onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share applicants. The PAN details, bank account statements, audited financial statements and Income Tax acknowledgments were placed on AO's record. Without doing so, the addition made by the AO is based on conjectures and surmises cannot be justified. In the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, no addition was warranted under Section 68 of the Act. Therefore, we delete the addition made by the assessing officer to the tune of Rs. 1,95,00,000/-. 39. Ground no. 3 raised by the assessee relates to disallowance of Rs. 75,193/- u/s 14A of the Act. 40. The brief facts qua the issue are that during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had made investment in shares of various quoted and unquoted shares and also not shown any disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Therefore, the Assessing Officer computed the disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D to the tune of Rs. 75,193/- which consists disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) to the tu....