Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 1960 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 68 - unexplained share premium received - Onus to prove - CIT-A deleted addition - HELD THAT:- No hesitation in agreeing with the Ld.CIT(A) that the genuineness of the transaction stood established and we do not see any reason to doubt the same. Even the Ld. DR has been unable to point out from the order of the A.O. as to why the impugned transactions were to be looked at with suspicion. The assessee had established the genuineness of the transactions by filing relevant documents and the same was confirmed by the investor companies also, no infirmity in the documents filed either by the assessee or by the investor companies has been pointed out by the Revenue. We fail to understand, therefore, why the impugned transaction should be treated as unexplained/ingenuine. Also having established the genuineness of the transaction with necessary documents, as above, the onus shifted to the Department, and having not pointed out any infirmity in the documents submitted by the assessee, the assessee was not any more required to file further evidences or even produce the directors of the companies. We agree therefore with the Ld.CIT(A) that the share premiums could not be said to be ingenuine merely because the directors of the companies were not produced for examination. Revenue challenge to the deletion of the addition on the ground that the assessee did not discharge its onus during assessment proceedings and adequate opportunity was not given to the AO to complete his inquiry vis a vis the investor companies and further that the CIT(A) admitted the additional evidences without following the procedure laid down in Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules,1962 for the same is not acceptable since as held above by us the assessee had duly discharged its onus of proving the genuineness of the transaction and the A.O. had been given sufficient opportunity to conduct all inquiries vis a vis the said investors in remand proceedings. Further we find that the CIT(A) had noted the fact that though the assessee had sought time to produce the investors, the AO without giving any further opportunity finalized the assessment. In this backdrop the CIT(A) admitted the evidences filed by the assessee collected from the investors and forwarded them to the AO for his comments. The CIT(A) therefore, we hold, had duly admitted the additional evidences in the circumstances enumerated in Rule 46A of the Rules, which allows the CIT(A) to admit such evidences where the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to adduce the same earlier. - Decided against revenue.
|