9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (5) TMI 528 - HC - Income TaxUnexplained share capital and share premium - assessee-company had not discharged the ba sic onus of establishing the identity genuineness and capacity of the Share Holders who had infused capital into the Company - ITAT deleted addition - HELD THAT - We note that the Tribunal has referred to the two decisions of this Court in the case of Alishan Steels Pvt. Ltd. 2024 (2) TMI 1482 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT as well as the decision in the case of M/s. Abhijeet Enterprise Ltd. 2023 (11) TMI 1312 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT . In the second decision the Division Bench of this Court took into consideration the decision in the case of V. R. Global Energy (P) Ltd 2018 (8) TMI 866 - MADRAS HIGH COURT wherein it was held that the assessee allotted share to a company in settlement of their existing liability of assessee to the said company since no cash was involved in the transaction of the said allotment of shares conversion of this liability in such share capital and share premium could not be treated as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of the Act. The court also took note of the fact that the revenue had filed appeal before the Hon ble Supreme Court against the said decision which was dismissed in the case of ITO Vs. V. R. Global Energy (P) Ltd. 2020 (1) TMI 520 - SC ORDER Apart from that two other decisions one of the Division Benchin the case of Jatia Investment Co. 1992 (8) TMI 16 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT and Ritu Anurag Agarwal 2009 (7) TMI 1247 - DELHI HIGH COURT also support the case of the assessee. The Tribunal took note the above decision and the admitted facts in position and dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue thereby affirming the order passed by the CIT(A). No substantial question of law arises
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The Court considered the following core legal questions: a. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) was justified in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,98,44,628/- made on account of unexplained share capital and share premium, despite the assessee-company not discharging the basic onus of establishing the identity, genuineness, and capacity of the shareholders who infused capital into the company before the Assessing Officer? b. Whether the Tribunal erred in law by not considering the ground of appeal raised by the Assessing Officer that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] violated the provisions of Rule 46-A by adjudicating the matter on the basis of documents provided by the assessee without remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer for examination of such new documents? 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue (a): Justification of Deletion of Addition on Account of Unexplained Share Capital and Share Premium Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, pertains to unexplained cash credits, where the assessee must establish the identity, genuineness, and capacity of the shareholders who infused capital. The burden lies on the assessee to prove the source and authenticity of the share capital and share premium. The Tribunal relied on several precedents, notably:
In V. R. Global Energy (P) Ltd., the Madras High Court held that allotment of shares in settlement of an existing liability, where no cash is involved, does not constitute unexplained cash credits under Section 68. This decision was upheld by the Supreme Court by dismissing the revenue's appeal. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court observed that the Tribunal had correctly applied the above precedents and noted the admitted facts. The Tribunal found that the share capital and share premium were allotted in a manner that did not amount to unexplained cash credits under Section 68. The Court emphasized that the revenue failed to establish that the assessee did not discharge the onus to prove the identity and genuineness of the shareholders. Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal considered the factual matrix and evidence on record, including the nature of the share allotment and the source of capital. The revenue's contention that the basic onus was not discharged was not supported by sufficient evidence to overturn the findings of the CIT(A) and the Tribunal. Application of Law to Facts: The Court found that the Tribunal's application of the principles enunciated in the cited precedents was appropriate. The conversion of liability into share capital and share premium without cash involvement was held not to be unexplained credit. The factual findings that the shareholders' identity and capacity were established were accepted. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The revenue's argument that the onus was not discharged was considered but found unpersuasive in light of the legal precedents and factual findings. The Court noted that the revenue had already challenged similar issues in higher courts and had not succeeded. Conclusions: The Court concluded that the Tribunal was justified in law and fact in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,98,44,628/- on account of unexplained share capital and share premium. Issue (b): Alleged Violation of Rule 46-A by CIT(A) and Non-Remand to Assessing Officer Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Rule 46-A of the Income Tax Rules mandates that when new evidence or documents are produced before the CIT(A), the matter should be remanded to the Assessing Officer if necessary, to examine such documents and give the revenue an opportunity to respond. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court noted the revenue's contention that the CIT(A) had adjudicated the matter on new documents provided by the assessee without remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer. However, the Court found that the Tribunal had adequately considered this ground and found no violation of Rule 46-A. Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal examined the procedural history and the documents relied upon. It was found that the CIT(A) had acted within the scope of his appellate jurisdiction and the revenue had sufficient opportunity to contest the documents. The Tribunal did not find any procedural irregularity warranting interference. Application of Law to Facts: The Court held that the CIT(A) did not err in not remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer, as the documents were not new in the strict sense but were part of the record before the Assessing Officer or were duly considered. The appellate authority had the jurisdiction to decide the matter on such documents. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The revenue's argument for remand was rejected as the Tribunal found that the procedural safeguards under Rule 46-A were not violated. The Court supported the Tribunal's view that the CIT(A) and Tribunal had properly exercised their jurisdiction. Conclusions: The Court concluded that there was no merit in the contention that Rule 46-A was violated and that the CIT(A) should have remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS "The Tribunal was fully justified in dismissing the revenue's appeal. The Tribunal has referred to the two decisions of this Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Alishan Steels Pvt. Ltd. and Pr. CIT Vs. M/s. Abhijeet Enterprise Ltd., which support the view that conversion of liability into share capital and share premium without cash involvement cannot be treated as unexplained
|
