Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 380 - ITAT GUWAHATIAddition u/s 68 - unexplained share capital - assessee’s investors / subscribers, Mr. C.N.Lyngdoh is an exempt assessee u/s 10(36) - whether assessee has not filed any documentary evidence as per the Assessing Officer as well. - HELD THAT:- No merit in Revenue’s instant arguments. It has come on record that this assessee before us had filed all the details of the exempt share applicant during the course of assessment. The Assessing Officer had not issued any process either sec. 131 or sec. 133(6) of the Act to assessee’s investor(s). We therefore quote hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. [1986 (3) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] that an assessee can only file all of its supportive documents in favour of its claim proving genuineness and creditworthiness of the investor parties. We further reiterate that there is also no denial to the CIT(A)’s clinching finding that the department has itself accepted all other transactions in Mr. Lyngdoh’s case. Since the assessee before us has already discharged its onus before the Assessing Officer. The mere fact that its investor is an exempt assessee u/s 10(36) does not give the impugned share application money the colour of unexplained cash credits - confirm the CIT(A)’s action deleting the impugned unexplained share application money - Decided in favour of assessee Assessment u/s 153A - Share capitals share premium and share application money addition - HELD THAT:- Purpose of the impugned sec. 153A proceedings is to assess total income of the searched taxpayer rather than that based on incriminating material only. Hon’ble jurisdictional high court has admittedly not adjudicated upon the instant legal issue as informed by the learned senior counsel as well as the department. We therefore quote hon’ble apex court’s decision in CIT vs. M/s Vegetable Products Ltd. [1973 (1) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] that the view favouring the assessee / taxpayer has to be adopted in such a backdrop involving conflicting judicial opinions of various hon'ble high courts and accordingly hold that the CIT(A) has rightly quashed the impugned assessment since not based on any incriminating material found or seized during the curse of search. - Decided against revenue Denial of telescoping benefit to the assessee - HELD THAT:- No substance in Revenue’s instant grievance as the purpose of telescoping is to avoid double addition qua the very income in the hands of taxpayer as held by the hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in Anantharam Veerasinghaiah and Co. vs. CIT [1980 (4) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT] ). Coupled with this, the assessee’s disclosure of its twin undisclosed income(s) stands accepted by the department itself. We conclude in these facts denied of the impugned telescoping benefit to the assessee would amount to a double addition. More so when its book treatment thereof under business income head has attained finality. - Decided against revenue
|