Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2011 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (7) TMI 1216 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained Cash Credits u/s 68 - No independent Inquiry by AO - Principal of Natural Jusitice - AO made an addition u/s 68 by treating the share application money as asssessee’s own income as bogus cash credit - AO relied upon some statements of directors of Kolkata Based companies for investigation HELD THAT: - It is evident from the assessment order that the AO has not conducted any independent enquiry during the assessment proceedings; but simply relied upon the report as well as the statements of the directors of various Kolkata based companies, who have paid the application money. Violation of Principle of Natural Justice - There is gross violation of Natural Justice when the AO asked the assessee to produce the directors for availing opportunity of cross examination. Therefore, there is a total denial of opportunity to the assessee to cross examine the persons, whose statements are used against the assessee. In the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS ASHWANI GUPTA [2010 (2) TMI 42 - DELHI HIGH COURT], it was held that, AO had passed the assessment order in violation of the principles of natural justice in as much as he had neither provided copies of the seized material to the assessee nor had he allowed the assessee to cross-examine. Regarding unexplained cash credit - It is cleared from the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS OASIS HOSPITALITIES (PVT.) LTD & UP BONE MILLS INDIA LTD. & VIJAY POWER GENERATORS LTD. & DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX [2011 (1) TMI 194 - DELHI HIGH COURT], that "once the assessee filed copy of PAN, Acknowledgement coy of the return of income of the investing companies, their bank accounts statements for the relevant period; then even the parties were not produced in spite of the specific directions of the Assessing Officer, the addition could not be sustained as the primary onus was discharged by the assessee by producing the PAN, balance sheet, copy of the acknowledgement copy of return of the applicants etc." The case of the revenue is that the cash moved from the assesse routed though various leveland then reached to the assesse in the form of share application money. The stand of the revenue is not in consonance with the statements of the directors of the investing companies which is the basis of the investigation report as well as addition by the AO. The said statements do not support the case of the revenue and the reliance place by the AO on such statements is highly misplaced and improper. When the stand of the revenue is in total contraction of the material on record then then in view of the latest decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Oasis Hospitalities P Ltd, we are of the considered opinion that the issue can be decided on merit and need not to be remand to the record of the AO because at the time of the order for the AY 2005-06, the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal was not having the benefit of the decision of the Oasis Hospitalities P Ltd. Further in view of the decision of hon’ble Gujrat High Court in case of RAJESH BABUBHAI DAMANIA VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. [2000 (6) TMI 5 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], we see no reason for giving the A.O. any further innings to fill up the lacunas or lapses in the assessment which would cause a great injustice to the assesse. The share application money cannot be treated as income of the assessee company until and unless it is proved beyond doubt that the assessee’s own money has come back through some closely related applicant. Once the identity of the applicant is disclosed and found as correct, then, even if the said transaction is suspected by the revenue authorities, the same cannot be treated as income of the assessee company which is a public limited company. Accordingly, we delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer - Decision in favour of Assessee
|