Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2024 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (2) TMI 455 - ITAT RAIPURUnexplained cash credit u/s. 68 - CIT(A) confirmed part addition - CIT(Appeals) was of the view that as the assessee company had failed to substantiate the authenticity of its claim of having received genuine share application money from two share applicants, thus partly made addition - HELD THAT:- Though the assessee company had duly discharged the primary onus that was cast upon it as regards proving the identity and creditworthiness of the share applicants and genuineness of the transaction of having received share application money from the aforementioned persons, but the A.O could not rebut the same based on any cogent evidence. As the A.O had not cared to discharge the onus that was cast upon him, therefore, as observed in the case Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd. [2011 (12) TMI 394 - DELHI HIGH COURT] for this negligence on the part of the A.O, he could not be provided with “fresh innings”. We, thus, in terms of our aforesaid observation finding no infirmity in the view taken by the CIT(Appeals) to the extent he had vacated the aforementioned additions made by the A.O by treating the money received from the said persons as unexplained cash credits u/s. 68 of the Act, and uphold the same. Sustainability of the addition with respect to two share applicants viz. Shri Ramesh Bind and Shri Dalla Nisad - The fact that Shri Ramesh Bind had returned his income of Rs. 1,78,100/- undeniably raises serious doubts about the veracity of his unsubstantiated claim of having made an investment of Rs. 18 lacs with the assessee company. Also, the financial statement of Shri Ramesh Bind, viz. balance sheet and capital account does not inspire any confidence for the reason that the nature of his business/sources of income cannot be gathered therefrom. Apart from that, the fact that the cash aggregating to Rs. 8 lacs was deposited in the aforesaid persons bank account in two tranches of Rs. 4 lacs each on the same date on which the amount was transferred to the assessee company read a/w. the fact that the said person had no substantial sources of income, thus, raises no confidence as regards the genuineness of the investment claimed by him to have been made with the assessee company. Also, the source out of which an amount of Rs. 10 lacs was transferred by the aforementioned person to the assessee company is not discernible from the record. At this stage, we may also herein observe that though Shri Ramesh Bind (supra) had filed an “affidavit” wherein he had accepted the fact of having made an investment of Rs. 18 lacs with the assessee company, but despite specific direction by the A.O, the aforesaid company had failed to produce him for necessary examination in the course of the assessment proceedings before the A.O. Shri Dallu Nisad - As nothing is discernible from the records, which would substantiate the creditworthiness of the aforementioned person who has stated to have made an investment of Rs. 1.08 crore (approx.) with the assessee company, we find no infirmity in the view taken by the A.O who had rightly dubbed the same as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68. We concur with the view taken by the CIT(Appeals) who had rightly observed that the assessee company had failed to establish the genuineness of the assessee’s claim of having received share application money from the aforementioned person by placing on record supporting documentary evidence, which would reveal his annual income and availability of funds a/w. sources of the same, therefore, we uphold the same. Both the appeal of the assessee and appeal of the revenue are dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations.
|