COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. TARUNA AUTO PVT LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA - 889 / 2010HC Delhi19 July 20103 pages
For Petitioner: PL BANSAL
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that if share application money is received from alleged bogus shareholders, the Revenue can reopen their individual assessments. Therefore, the share application money cannot be treated as undisclosed income of the assessee.

What were the facts?

The Revenue challenged the ITAT's deletion of an addition of twelve lacs on account of undisclosed income. The assessee had provided share application details, certificates, and investor PAN numbers.

What were the issues?

Whether the burden of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of share transactions lies solely with the assessee when the Revenue can proceed against alleged bogus shareholders.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

#6 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ ITA 889/2010

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Advocate

versus

TARUNA AUTO PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent

Through: None

Date of Decision: 19th July, 2010

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

1.

Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

No.

MANMOHAN, J (ORAL)

1.

The present appeal has been filed under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity “Act, 1961”) challenging the order dated 19th June, 2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short “ITAT”) in ITA No. 1146/Del/2009, for the assessment year 2001- 2002.

2.

Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, learned counsel for Revenue submitted that ITAT had erred in law in deleting the addition of rupees twelve lacs on account of undisclosed income under Section 68 of Act, 1961. 2010:DHC:3547-DB

She further submitted that the burden was on the assessee to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the shareholder as well as the genuineness of the transaction – which the assessee had failed to discharge in the present case.

3.

Both the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short “Commissioner”] and the ITAT have found that the assessee had filed copies of share applications, share certificates, conformations/ affidavits and income tax return acknowledgements. The PAN numbers of the investors had also been furnished to the assessing officer. Both the authorities below have also held that if the share application money had been received by the assessee from alleged bogus shareholders, then the Revenue was free to reopen the alleged shareholders’ assessment in accordance with law.

4.

In our considered opinion, the approach adopted by the Commissioner and ITAT is in consonance with the decision of Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd., 216 CTR 195 (SC) wherein it has been held as under :- “2. Can the amount of share money be regarded as undisclosed income under s. 68 of IT Act, 1961? We find no merit in this Special Leave Petition for the simple reason that if the share application money is received by the assessee company from alleged bogus shareholders, whose names are given to the AO, then the Department is free to proceed to reopen their individual assessments in accordance with law. Hence, we find no infirmity with the impugned judgment……”

2010:DHC:3547-DB

5.

Keeping in view the aforesaid mandate of law, the share application money of rupees twelve lacs cannot be regarded as undisclosed income of assessee under Section 68 of Act, 1961. Accordingly, present appeal is dismissed in limine but with no order as to costs.

MANMOHAN, J

CHIEF JUSTICE JULY 19, 2010 rn 2010:DHC:3547-DB

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →