Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (6) TMI 399 - AT - Income TaxValidity of assessment u/s 147 - no addition is made in regards to reason for which assessment is reopened - Addition u/s 68 - HELD THAT:- We find that original return was processed u/s 143(1) and the only requirement under law to initiate reassessment proceeding against the assessee was that Ld.AO had reasons to believe that certain income had escaped assessment. AO was clinched with specific information while forming such reasons which suggested possible escapement of income in the hands of the assessee. Nothing more, in our opinion, was required at that stage to reopen the assessee’s case and formation of a prima-facie opinion was sufficient to trigger the reassessment proceedings. Not convinced with legal grounds / submissions made by Ld. AR, we dismiss the same and hold that reassessment proceedings were validly initiated against the assessee. Ground Nos. 1 to 2 as well as additional ground stands dismissed. So far as the merit of the case are concerned, we find that the onus to demonstrate the fulfilment of primary ingredients of Sec.68 was on assessee. This onus was to prove the identity of the investor entities, their respective creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions. This onus was more in the factual matrix which led to trigger reassessment proceedings against the assessee. Upon perusal of documents on record, we find that the assessee had furnished Income Tax Acknowledgements of the investor entities, Board Resolutions passed by those entities to make investment in the assessee entity, copies of Share Application form, audited annual accounts and the bank statements of investor entities. There are no immediate cash deposits in the bank accounts of these entities before making investment in the assessee entity. The allotment was authorized by Board Resolution of the assessee and Return of Allotment in Form No.2 was filed with appropriate authorities. Upon perusal of these documents, it could be said that the assessee had discharged the primary onus of Sec.68 and it was incumbent on the part of Ld.AO to rebut assessee’s claim. However, we find that no material has been brought on record to suggest that any cash got exchanged between the assessee and the investor entities and the assessee’s unaccounted money was channelized in the books in the garb of share application. Mere non-appearance of directors alone could not support the impugned additions in the hands of the assessee. We delete the impugned additions u/s 68 - Decided in favour of assessee.
|