2025 (6) TMI 1392 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained Share Application Money u/s 68 - as per revenue assessee discharged the onus of proving the identity creditworthiness and genuineness of the investors and transactions - HELD THAT - Since the entire share application money has been received in cash and the date of transaction was not even filed before the AO nor before the Ld. CIT(A) nor even now in the additional evidence filed before us therefore the documents are self-serving documents and on failure of the Director to appear before the AO when the examination was to be carried out and to subject himself to examination as there was non-compliance after partial recording of statement the entire share application money being received in cash no credence can be given to the evidence filed as the entire scheme is a make-believe transaction and the transactions of receipt of share application money are not genuine more so when proceedings against the company for irregularities were being conducted. As regards the SIT yet to give its final verdict the facts have been elaborately brought out in the order of Hon ble High Court and have been reproduced in the order of the Ld. CIT(A); therefore we are of the view that considering the preponderance of probability which governs the proceedings under the Income Tax Act 1961 even though the assessee may get relief in a criminal procedure which requires a proof beyond reasonable doubt and the standard of proof is on a much higher scale while in the case of the assessment proceedings the surrounding circumstances the test of human probabilities and the preponderance of probabilities have to be considered for making the assessment of income we find no justification for any interference in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) whose order is hereby confirmed and the Ground raised by the assessee are dismissed.

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in this appeal pertain primarily to the validity and applicability of additions made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, relating to unexplained share application money credited in the books of the assessee company. The issues also include whether the assessee discharged the onus of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the investors and transactions, the procedural fairness in the assessment proceedings, and the treatment of a disputed membership fee wrongly offered as income.

First, the Tribunal examined whether the addition of Rs. 8,50,45,030/- under the head "Income from other sources" on account of unexplained share application money was justified under Section 68. This involved assessing if the preconditions for invoking Section 68 were met, including whether the sum was found credited in the books of accounts, and whether the assessee satisfactorily explained the nature and source of the credit.

Second, the Tribunal considered whether the assessee had discharged the burden of proof regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the investors who purportedly contributed the share application money, especially given the cash mode of receipt and the nature of the investing companies.

Third, the Tribunal analyzed the procedural aspects, including whether the Assessing Officer (AO) conducted a proper examination of books of accounts and whether the assessee was given adequate opportunity to explain the nature and source of the share application money.

Fourth, the Tribunal addressed the claim concerning a sum of Rs. 5,11,68,800/- credited as other income but contended by the assessee to be a liability representing advance membership fees, and whether this amount should be disallowed as income.

Regarding the first issue, the Tribunal applied the legal framework established under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, which mandates that where any sum is found credited in the books of account and the assessee fails to satisfactorily explain its nature and source, the sum is liable to be added to the income. The Tribunal noted that the addition was based on the AO's finding that the share application money was received entirely in cash from 31 companies and one individual, primarily based in Kolkata, many of which were closely held companies with common directors and were either non-existent or under the process of striking off. The AO's reasoning was grounded in the improbability of such large cash investments by unknown companies in a small, un-reputed company located in Guwahati, and the absence of documentary evidence to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the investors. The Tribunal concurred with the AO's conclusion that the transactions were highly improbable and likely bogus, given the lack of documentary evidence, failure to furnish dates of receipt, and the incomplete examination of the Managing Director under Section 131 of the Act.

In evaluating the second issue, the Tribunal extensively reviewed judicial precedents emphasizing the onus on the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the creditors or investors in cases of cash credits or share application money. The Tribunal referenced landmark Supreme Court decisions and authoritative rulings from High Courts and Tribunals, including the principle that mere production of incorporation details, PAN, or income tax returns of investors does not suffice to discharge the onus if the surrounding facts indicate a facade of transactions. The Tribunal highlighted that the investor companies had meagre income, negligible or no business operations, and the share application money was received at a high premium without any rationale or valuation justification. Further, the Tribunal noted the pattern of "round-tripping" or circular transactions among group companies with common directors, indicating a premeditated plan to introduce unaccounted money disguised as share capital. The Tribunal applied the doctrine of "source of source" or "origin of origin" to conclude that the creditworthiness of the investors was questionable and the transactions were not genuine.

On the procedural aspect, the Tribunal observed that although the AO issued a notice under Section 142(1) seeking details of share application money, the assessee was never specifically asked to explain the nature and source of the credit under Section 68 during the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's contention that no opportunity was provided to produce documentary evidence or to have the investors examined under Sections 131 or 133(6). However, the Tribunal found that the assessee had failed to furnish cogent evidence before the AO or CIT(A), and the additional evidence filed before the Tribunal was fresh and not supported by valid reasons for non-submission earlier. The Tribunal further noted the Managing Director's failure to comply with summons for examination, which impaired the enquiry.

Regarding the membership fee of Rs. 5,11,68,800/-, the Tribunal considered the claim that this amount was wrongly offered as income but was in fact an advance liability for services and products not yet provided. The assessee relied on judicial precedents allowing the admission of new grounds or claims before appellate authorities if relevant material was on record. However, the CIT(A) had rejected the claim based on ongoing investigations by a Special Investigation Team and the absence of clear evidence that the amount was a liability and not forfeited income. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the investigation's outcome was relevant and that the assessee had not sufficiently established the claim as a liability distinct from income.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal emphasized the application of the test of human probabilities and preponderance of evidence rather than the higher standard of proof required in criminal proceedings. It held that the surrounding circumstances, including the nature of the investor companies, mode of receipt of funds, pattern of transactions, and failure to produce substantive evidence, justified the additions under Section 68. The Tribunal rejected the assessee's argument that the burden of proof never shifted to it, clarifying that once the AO raises a plausible doubt and makes enquiries, the onus lies on the assessee to satisfactorily explain the transactions.

The Tribunal also addressed the contention that share capital money could not be subjected to Section 68 additions, referencing the Supreme Court's decision which held that if the share application money is received from bogus shareholders, the Department may proceed against the shareholders individually, but this does not preclude addition under Section 68 in the hands of the company. The Tribunal found this principle applicable and consistent with the facts.

In dealing with competing arguments, the Tribunal carefully weighed the assessee's submissions regarding cooperation during assessment, absence of specific notices to investors, and the existence of some investors as existing shareholders. However, it found these unconvincing in light of the overall evidence and judicial precedents. The Tribunal also considered the assessee's reliance on the absence of examination of books of accounts but observed that the balance sheet itself revealed the suspicious transactions and that the AO's enquiries were reasonable and justified.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the additions under Section 68 were rightly made, the preconditions for invoking Section 68 were satisfied, and the assessee failed to discharge the burden of proving identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share application money. The claim regarding the membership fee was also rejected due to lack of sufficient evidence and ongoing investigations.

Significant holdings include the following verbatim legal reasoning:

"The assessee is under a legal obligation to prove the genuineness of the transaction, the identity of the creditors, and creditworthiness of the investors who should have the financial capacity to make the investment in question, to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer, so as to discharge the primary onus."

"The Assessing Officer is duty bound to investigate the creditworthiness of the creditor/subscriber, verify the identity of the subscribers, and ascertain whether the transaction is genuine, or these are bogus entries of name-lenders."

"If the enquiries and investigations reveal that the identity of the creditors to be dubious or doubtful, or lack creditworthiness, then the genuineness of the transaction would not be established. In such a case, the assessee would not have discharged the primary onus contemplated by Section 68."

"The doctrine of 'source of source' or 'origin of origin' cannot be applied universally, without reference to the factual matrix and facts of each case. The said test in case of normal business transactions may be light and not vigorous. However, when there is surrounding evidence and material manifesting and revealing involvement of the assessee in the 'transaction' and that it was not entirely an arm's length transaction, resort or reliance to the said doctrine may be counter-productive and contrary to equity and justice."

"The principle of preponderance of probabilities applies with full force to the case on hand which leads to the irresistible conclusion that the finding rendered by the CIT(A) is legal and valid."

"The test of human probabilities and the preponderance of probabilities have to be considered for making the assessment of income, we find no justification for any interference in the order of the Ld. CIT(A)."

The core principles established reaffirm the settled legal position that in cases of unexplained cash credits or share application money, the assessee bears the initial burden to prove identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the investors and transactions. Mere production of basic documents or filing of income tax returns by investors is insufficient if the surrounding facts indicate a facade or sham transactions. The Tribunal underscored the importance of examining the pattern of transactions, related party connections, and the financial capacity of investors. It also emphasized that procedural fairness requires the AO to conduct reasonable enquiries, but the failure of the assessee to cooperate or furnish evidence justifies additions under Section 68.

On the final determinations, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, confirming the addition of Rs. 8,50,45,030/- as unexplained income under Section 68 and rejecting the claim to treat Rs. 5,11,68,800/- as a liability. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order and found no merit in the assessee's grounds of appeal.

← Previous Next →