Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (8) TMI 310 - AT - Income TaxAdditions u/s 68 - cash credit - share applicatio nmoney - Admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A – Held that:- The moot question is whether the time allowed to the assessee to produce the evidence in support of share application and share premium can be said to be sufficient time as envisaged by Rule 46A(1)(d) - The time of only five days cannot be said to be a sufficient time to produce necessary evidence - within those short period of five days, the assessee furnished the details/evidences which were available with him - If the AO was not satisfied with those details/evidences produced by the assessee, he should have allowed further opportunity to the assessee to produce further evidence in this regard but no further opportunity was allowed by the AO - CIT(A) rightly admitted the additional evidence – Decided against Revenue. Addition of unexplained credit - Whether the assessee has been able to discharge the onus of proving the credit in the form of share capital/share premium – Held that:- The assessee has produced the copy of share application form submitted by those companies before the AO - Copy of the share application form shows the name and address of the company who applied for shares, number of shares applied, amount, date and cheque number by which payment is made, name of the bank on which cheque was drawn and the permanent account number of the company - No discrepancy in any of these details is pointed out - all the shareholder companies are assessed to income tax and the acknowledgements of filing of their income tax returns by those companies were furnished - the creditworthiness of these companies cannot be disputed - each company is assessed to income tax and the shares were allotted to each company on the basis of the share application form - the genuineness of the transaction is also duly established - The AO doubted the creditworthiness or the genuineness of the transaction on the basis of mere presumption and suspicion without properly appreciating the evidences on record – Relying upon CIT, Orissa Vs. Orissa Corporation P. Ltd. - [1986 (3) TMI 3 - SUPREME Court] – Decided against Revenue.
|