Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2021 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 1095 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained cash credit u/s 68 - case of the assessee that the surrender was made on account of receipt of share application/capital from three companies without the presence of any incriminating material - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- We find merit in the plea of the Assessee that charging tax on the disclosure made in the individual capacity and bringing the same amount to tax yet again in the hands of the assessee Company would clearly amount to double taxation. Secondly, the assessment of the assessee Company for A.Y. 2011-12 has remained undisturbed where similar subscription of ₹ 7.75 Crores has been obtained and declared by Shri Singhania. The source of share capital thus clearly stand proved on account of disclosure by Singhania - A.O. was patently unjustified in making separate additions in the hands of the assessee Company for the same very disclosure. The reasoning of the CIT(A) for reversal of the action of the A.O. is on sound rationale. Unexplained cash credit on account of trade advance u/s 68 - CIT(A) after obtaining the remand report from the A.O. affirmed the fact that the booking advances received by the assessee have been duly refunded which fact has also been accepted by the prospective buyers - HELD THAT:- AO has not made any attempt to rebut the claim of the assessee. The confirmations were filed by the assessee to support the factual position. The assessee has placed the facts which are apparent in nature for which no rebuttal has been done. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ayachi Chandrasekhar Narsangji, [2013 (12) TMI 372 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], CIT s. Mahavir Crimpers, [2018 (6) TMI 1058 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] have held that when the Department has accepted the factum of repayment, the additions under section 68 is not sustainable in law. Similar view has been expressed in CIT vs. Karaj Singh [2011 (3) TMI 951 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] & Panna Devi Chowdhary vs. CIT,[1994 (3) TMI 80 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] Overwhelming fact of refund of booking advances which transcends all other considerations coupled with the confirmations from prospective buyers, the CIT(A), in our view, has rightly concluded the issue in favour of the assessee. The view of the CIT(A) is based on sound legal principle in the facts of the case and cannot be dislodged. Thus, we see no merit in the grievance of the revenue.
|