9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (5) TMI 834 - HC - Income TaxUnexplained cash credit u/s 68 - non discharge of onus to prove identity and creditworthiness of the share subscribers - ITAT deleted addition - HELD THAT - It is not disputed by the revenue that identical issue was considered by this Court in the case of Wise Investment Private Limited 2025 (5) TMI 628 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT earning per share of the assessee company had grown from two and half times to 16% per share of Rs. 10 and therefore the CIT(A) on facts held that the assessee company was showing good returns and were showing good profits for its investors and it is a growing company. Therefore the submission of the revenue that the allegation that unduly high premium was charged was not examined by the CIT(A) is incorrect. In fact this aspect was also examined by the assessing officer to certain extent as pointed out by the CIT(A). When the matter travelled on appeal to the learned tribunal at the instance of the revenue the factual aspects were re-examined. The tribunal notes that the paper book were filed and all documents were placed before the learned tribunal and after noting the facts the learned tribunal came to the conclusion that the CIT(A) was well justified in deleting the addition made u/s 68 of the Act. Circumstances the case on hand it is not mere production of incorporating details PAN numbers etc. in the case on hand the CIT(A) had made an elaborate exercise to examine the facts called for two remand reports after which finding has been recorded in favour of the assessee.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The appeal raises four core legal questions regarding the treatment of unexplained cash credits and expenditures under the Income Tax Act, 1961, specifically Sections 68 and 69C: A) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) erred in law by deleting additions totaling approximately Rs. 33.51 crores on account of unexplained cash credit under Section 68 and unexplained expenditure under Section 69C, amounting to Rs. 16,75,665/-; B) Whether the ITAT was justified in law to delete the addition under Section 68 on the basis that the assessee discharged its onus to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the share subscribers, despite the principle that identity, creditworthiness, or genuineness cannot be established merely by showing transactions through banking channels or account payee instruments; C) Whether the ITAT was justified in law to delete the addition under Section 68 by relying on the fact that the investing companies are body corporates registered with the Registrar of Companies and individually assessed to income tax, despite this not being the sole test for establishing creditworthiness and genuineness; D) Whether the ITAT erred in not considering that closely held companies entail an additional onus to prove the source of money in the hands of shareholders or persons making payments towards share issues before accepting such sums as genuine credits. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue A: Deletion of additions under Sections 68 and 69C Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 68 of the Income Tax Act pertains to unexplained cash credits, requiring the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction. Section 69C relates to unexplained expenditure. The burden lies on the assessee to satisfactorily explain the source and nature of such credits or expenditures. Jurisprudence, including the cited case of M/s BST Infratech Ltd., establishes that mere banking channel evidence is insufficient to discharge this burden. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court noted that the revenue did not dispute the applicability of earlier decisions, particularly the judgment in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Wise Investment Private Limited, which dealt with identical issues. The Court relied heavily on this precedent, which affirmed that the identity and creditworthiness of investors were established, and the genuineness of transactions was upheld after detailed scrutiny by the CIT(A) and the ITAT. Key Evidence and Findings: The CIT(A) had called for two remand reports, which confirmed the identity and creditworthiness of the investing companies. The CIT(A) also examined the allegation of abnormally high share premium and found it justified based on the company's growth, turnover, inventory holdings, and profitability. The company showed a 39% growth in turnover and a threefold increase in profits between assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13, with earnings per share increasing significantly. Application of Law to Facts: The Court accepted the CIT(A)'s detailed findings that the share premium was paid in anticipation of future prospects and that the company was a growing entity with good returns. The assessing officer's doubts were addressed and found to be unsubstantiated. The ITAT's deletion of additions under Section 68 and 69C was thus upheld. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The revenue's contention that the CIT(A) failed to consider the high share premium was rejected, as the CIT(A) had examined this aspect elaborately. The Court also distinguished the present facts from other decisions that require mere production of incorporation details and PAN numbers, emphasizing the detailed factual inquiry conducted here. Conclusion: The deletion of additions under Sections 68 and 69C was justified on the facts and in law, as the assessee discharged its burden satisfactorily. Issues B, C, and D: Onus of Proof Regarding Identity, Creditworthiness, and Genuineness of Transactions Legal Framework and Precedents: The jurisprudence, including the decision in M/s BST Infratech Ltd., mandates that the assessee must establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions, especially in cases involving closely held companies where an additional onus exists to prove the source of funds. Merely showing that transactions occurred through banking channels or that investing companies are registered entities assessed to tax is insufficient. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court acknowledged these principles but found that the CIT(A) and ITAT had applied them correctly in the present case. The CIT(A) conducted an elaborate examination, including remand reports, to establish these factors. The investing companies' status as body corporates and their tax assessments were considered relevant but not conclusive; however, combined with other evidence, they sufficed to discharge the burden. Key Evidence and Findings: The CIT(A)'s findings included the growth and profitability of the assessee company, the nature of investments, and the presence of supporting documents spanning over 1000 pages. The assessing officer's observations about personal contacts and persuasion for investments were noted but found insufficient to negate the genuineness of transactions. Application of Law to Facts: The Court held that the ITAT did not err in law by relying on the totality of evidence to conclude that the assessee had discharged the onus. The additional onus in closely held companies was considered, and the evidence was found adequate to meet this requirement. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The revenue's reliance on the BST Infratech precedent to argue that the ITAT ignored the additional onus was rejected. The Court found that the CIT(A) and ITAT had duly considered these legal principles and applied them to the facts. Conclusion: The ITAT's deletion of additions under Section 68 was justified, and the principles regarding identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness were properly applied. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Court's key legal reasoning is encapsulated in the operative portion of the precedent judgment relied upon, which was adopted here: "The short issue which falls for consideration in the instant case is whether three factors which are required to be established by the department at the first instance have been established namely identity of the investors, their creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transaction." "It has been explained that this premium was paid on account of the anticipated future prospects of the appellant company... The appellant company was obvious showing good returns and was showing good prospects for its investors. It was also a fact growing company." "The CIT(A) on facts held that the assessee company was showing good returns and were showing good profits for its investors and it is a growing company. Therefore, the submission of the revenue that the allegation that unduly high premium was charged was not examined by the CIT(A) is incorrect." "The CIT(A) had made an elaborate exercise to examine the facts, called for two remand reports after which finding has been recorded in favour of the assessee." "Thus, for the above reasons we find that there is no question of law much less substantial question of law arising for consideration in this appeal." Core principles established include:
Final determinations:
|
