Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2023 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (7) TMI 785 - ITAT DELHIAddition u/s 68 - unexplained credit/receipt - bogus receipt towards share capital and share premium - genuineness and creditworthiness of the subscribing company in this case remained unproved - HELD THAT:- Where the existence of the shareholder/subscriber is fully identifiable and unequivocally proved by direct evidences, the creditworthiness of the subscriber is justifiable by formidable evidences and the genuineness of the transaction carried out through banking channel and return of allotment for subscription of shares have been filed before the competent authority, the dispute raised by the Revenue appears inexplicable. The substantial net worth enjoyed both by the subscriber as well as the source of source also provides sound basis to infer the bona fides of the transaction and fortifies the plea of the assessee. The suspicion entertained on bona fides has not been carried out to any logical end. AO has attempted to implicate the assessee mainly on two grounds namely, inspector report which shows that the assessee was not in existence at the address and secondly, the summons issued u/s 131 has not been complied with by the Director of the Assessee. Both the points do not have much force. The inspector is stated to have visited on local address utilized on share basis. No verification at registered office situated at Kolkata was done. This apart, it is illogical to fasten liability on the assessee merely because director of the subscriber sitting 1500 km away could not personally attend at the command of the AO at a short notice but instead produced his representative in an available time span of merely four days. Thus, when seen in the light of cumulative facts, the allegation made against the assessee by the Assessing Officer has been rightly found to be devoid of any strength by the CIT(A). We concur with the conclusion drawn by the CIT(A) on facts that charge of the AO towards lack of satisfactory explanation contemplated u/s 68 of the Act against the assessee is without any demonstrable basis. Decided in favour of assessee.
|