M/S. BLUE LOTUS DESIGNERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-7(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

- This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-16 Kolkata’s order dated 27.02.2017 passed in case No.755/CIT(A)-16/Kol/2015-16/W-7(4) involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

The assessee’s sole substantive ground raised in the instant appeal reads that both the lower authorities’ have erred in law and on facts in treating its share capital / premium of ₹2,01,50,000/- as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act. The CIT(A)’s detailed discussion to this effect reads as under:- “3 The assessee has raised 7 grounds of appeal. The issue is addition Rs.2,01,50,000/- u/s 68 of the income tax Act as unexplained cash credit. The order is passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act.

We may gainfully refer to the judgment in the case of Pr. CIT Vs Paradise Inland Shipping (P) Ltd (84 taxmann.com 58) wherein the Bombay High Court had deleted similar addition on similar set of facts made on account of unexplained cash credits and the SLP filed by the Revenue against the judgment has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The relevant extracts of the judgment is as follows: “5. We have given our thoughtful considerations to the rival contentions of the learned Counsel and we have also gone through the records. The basic contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants revolves upon the stand taken by the Appellants whether the shareholders who have invested in the shares of the Respondents are fictitious or not. In this connection, the Respondents in support of their stand about the genuineness of the transaction entered into with such Companies has produced voluminous documents which, inter alia, have been noted at Para 3 of the Judgment of the CIT Appeals which reads thus : "The assessment is completed without rebutting the 550 page documents which are unflinching records of the companies. The list of documents submitted on 09.03.2015 are as follows :

We may gainfully refer to the following decisions of the Hon’ble High Court in the cases as under : (a) In the case of Pr. CIT Vs Chain House International (P) Ltd [2018] (98 taxmann.com 47) the AO had added the share application by way of unexplained cash credits was that the assessee was unable to give any justifiable reason for issuing shares at a premium. The Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court did not agree with this reasoning given by the AO for making addition u/s 68, holding as under: “Issuing the share at a premium was a commercial decision. It is the prerogative of the Board of Directors of a company to decide the premium amount and it is the wisdom of shareholder whether they want to subscribe the shares at such a premium or not. This was a mutual decision between both the companies. In day to day market, unless and until, the rates is fixed by any Govt. Authority or unless there is any restriction on the amount of share premium under any law, the price of the shares is decided on the mutual understanding of the parties concerned. [Para 52] Once the genuineness, creditworthiness and identity of investors are established, the revenue should not justifiably claim to put itself in the armchair of a businessman or in the position of the Board of Directors and assume the role of ascertaining how much is a reasonable premium having regard to the circumstances of the case. [Para 53] There is no dispute about the receipt of funds through banking channel nor there is any dispute about the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the investors and, therefore, the same has been established beyond any doubt and there should not have been any question or dispute about premium paid by the investors; therefore, unless there is a limitation put by the law on the amount of premium, the transaction should not be questioned merely because the assessing authority thinks that the investor could have managed by paying a lesser amount as Share Premium as a prudent businessman. The test of prudence by substituting its own view in place of the businessman's has not been approved by the Supreme Court. [Para 54]” (b) In the case of CIT v. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. [2017] 80 taxmann.com 272/247 Taxman 245/394 ITR 680 the Revenue contended that the fact that the shares were issued at high premium raised suspicion on the A.Y. 2012-13 M/s Blue Lotus Designers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO Wd-7(4), Kol. Page 6 genuineness of the transactions. While dismissing this plea raised by the Revenue, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held as under: (e) We find that the proviso to section 68 of the Act has been introduced by the Finance Act 2012 with effect from 1st April, 2013. Thus it would be effective only from the Assessment Year 2013-14 onwards and not for the subject Assessment Year. In fact, before the Tribunal, it was not even the case of the Revenue that Section 68 of the Act as in force during the subject years has to be read/understood as though the proviso added subsequently effective only from 1st April, 2013 was its normal meaning. The Parliament did not introduce to proviso to Section 68 of the Act with retrospective effect nor does the proviso so introduced states that it was introduced "for removal of doubts" or that it is "declaratory". Therefore it is not open to give it retrospective effect, by proceeding on the basis that the addition of the proviso to Section 68 of the Act is immaterial and does not change the interpretation of Section 68 of the Act both before and after the adding of the proviso. In any view of the matter the three essential tests while confirming the pre- proviso Section 68 of the Act laid down by the Courts namely the genuineness of the transaction, identity and the capacity of the investor have all been examined by the impugned order of the Tribunal and on facts it was found satisfied. Further it was a submission on behalf of the Revenue that such large amount of share premium gives rise to suspicion on the genuineness (identity) of the shareholders i.e. they are bogus. The Apex Court in Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd.(supra) in the context to the pre-amended Section 68 of the Act has held that where the Revenue urges that the amount of share application money has been received from bogus shareholders then it is for the Income Tax Officer to proceed by reopening the assessment of such shareholders and assessing them to tax in accordance with law. It does not entitle the Revenue to add the same to the assessee's income as unexplained cash credit. (f) In the above circumstances and particularly in view of the concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, the proposed question of law does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus not entertained. (c) In CIT Vs. Anshika Consultants Pvt Ltd (62 taxmann.com 192), the AO had added the share application monies treating it to be their unaccounted monies routed though accommodation entries since the shares were issued at a high premium. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court did not agree with this contention put forth by the Revenue, by observing as under: “Whether the assessee-company charged a higher premium or not, should not have been the subject matter of the enquiry in the first instance. Instead, the issue was whether the amount invested by the share applicants were from legitimate sources. The objective of section 68 is to avoid inclusion of amount which are suspect. Therefore, the emphasis on genuineness of all the three aspects, identity, creditworthiness and the transaction. What is disquieting in the present case is when the assessment was completed, the investigation report which was specifically called from the concerned department was available but not discussed by the Assessing Officer. Had he cared to ITA No.941/Kol/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 M/s Blue Lotus Designers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO Wd-7(4), Kol. Page 7 do so, the identity of the investors, the genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness of the share applicants would have been apparent. Even otherwise, the share applicants' particulars were available with the Assessing Officer in the form of balance sheets income-tax returns, PAN details etc. While arriving at the conclusion that he did, the Assessing Officer did not consider it worthwhile to make any further enquiry but based his order on the high nature of the premium and certain features which appeared to be suspect, to determine that the amount had been routed from the assessee's account to the share applicants' account. As held concurrently by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal, these conclusions were clearly baseless and false. This Court is constrained to observe that the Assessing Officer utterly failed to comply with his duty considers all the materials on record, ignoring specifically the most crucial documents.”

Instead, we find that the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT VsGangeshwari Metal (P) Ltd (ITA No. 597 of 2012) dated 21.01.2012 is of much relevance in the facts of the assessee’s case. In this case the assessee had received share application money of Rs.55.50 lacs during the year in question. The assessee filed the complete names, addresses of the share applicants, confirmatory letters from them, copies of bank statements of both the company as well as the share applicants and copies of share application forms. In spite of the aforesaid documentary evidences the AO held the explanation to be unacceptable and treated the share application as unexplained cash credit thereby making addition under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. On appeal the CIT(Appeals) deleted the aforesaid addition holding that the identity of the share applicants stood established beyond doubt, all the payments were through account payee cheques and the share applicants were regular income-tax assessees. The CIT(Appeals) further held that the Revenue did not bring any evidence on record to suggest that the share application had been received by the assessee from its own undisclosed sources nor any material was brought on record to show that .the applicants were bogus. The Revenue was neither able to controvert the documentary evidences filed by the appellant nor prove that the share application wereingenuine or the applicants were non-creditworthy. The findings of the CIT(Appeals) were upheld by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. On appeal to the High Court, the Revenue placed strong reliance on the decision of another coordinate Bench of the same Court in the" case of CIT Vs Novo Promoters &Finlease (P) Ltd (342 ITR 169). The High Court however held that the aforesaid judgment was distinguishable from the facts of the present case. The Court observed that in that judgment the Assessing Officer had brought on record enough corroborative evidence to show that the assessee had routed unaccounted monies into its books through medium of share subscription. The share applicants had confessed that they were "accommodation entry M/s Blue Lotus Designers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO Wd-7(4), Kol. Page 8 providers". The Assessing Officer in the latter case was able to prove with enough material that the share subscription was a pre-meditated plan to route unaccounted monies. In the present case however the Department was unable to bring any material whatsoever shows that share application was in the nature of accommodation entries. The Court observed that the appellant had filed sufficient documentary evidences to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the share applicant and the genuineness of the transaction. The AO however chose to sit back with folded hands till the assessee exhausted all the evidence in his possession and then merely reject the same without conducting any inquiry or verification whatsoever. The Court thus held that the decision of CIT Vs Novo Promoters &Finlease (P) Ltd (342 ITR 169) was not applicable to the facts of the case. Instead it was held that the issue in hands was on the lines of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Lovely Exports Pvt Ltd (319 ITR 5). Accordingly, the addition made under Section 68 on account of share application was deleted. The relevant extracts of the judgment is as follows:- “As can be seen from the above extract, two types of cases have been indicated. One in which the Assessing Officer carries out the exercise which is required in law and the other in which the Assessing Officer 'sits back with folded hands' till the assessee exhausts all the evidence or material in his possession and then comes forward to merely reject the same on the presumptions. The present case falls in the latter category. Here the Assessing Officer after noting the facts, merely rejected the same. This would be apparent from the observations of the Assessing Officer in the assessment order to the following effect:- ''Investigation made by the Investigation Wing of the department clearly showed that this was nothing but a sham transaction of accommodation entry. The assessee was asked to explain as to why the said amount of Rs.1,11,50,000/- may not be added to its income. In response, the assessee has submitted that there is no such credit in the books of the assessee. Rather, the assessee company has received the share application money for allotment of its share. It was stated that the actual amount received was Rs.55,50,000/- and not Rs.1,11,50,000/- as mentioned in the notice. The assessee has furnished details of such receipts and the contention of the assessee in respect of the amount is found correct. As such the unexplained amount is to be taken at Rs.55,50,000/-. The assessee has further tries to explain the source of this amount of Rs.55,50,000/- by furnishing copies of share application money, balance4 sheet etc. of the parties mentioned above and asserted that the question of addition in the income of the assessee does not arise. This explanation of the assessee has been duly considered and found not acceptable. This entry remains unexplained in the hands of the assessee as has been arrived by the Investigation wing of the department. As such entries of Rs.55,50,000/- received by the assessee are treated as an unexplained cash credit in the hands of the assessee and added to its income. Since I am satisfied that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income/ penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) are being initiated separately. The facts of Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd. (supra) fall in the former category and that is why this Court decided in favour of the revenue in that case. However, the facts of the present case are clearly M/s Blue Lotus Designers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO Wd-7(4), Kol. Page 9 distinguishable and fall in the second category and are more in line with facts of Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. (supra). There was a clear lack of inquiry on the part of the Assessing Officer once the assessee had furnished all the material which we have already referred to above. In such an eventuality no addition can be made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act 1961. Consequently, the question is answered in the negative. The decision of the Tribunal is correct in law”

Further, in the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. [2012] 19 taxmann.com 26/206 Taxman 254/[2014] 361 ITR 220 is also relevant, wherein it was held as under : "Once adequate evidence/material is given, which would prima facie discharge the burden of the assessee in proving the identity of shareholders, genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the shareholders, thereafter in case such evidence is to be discarded or it is proved that it has "created" evidence, the Revenue is supposed to make thorough probe before it could nail the assessee and fasten the assessee with such a liability under s.68; A.O. failed to carry his suspicion to logical conclusion by further investigation and therefore addition under s.68 was not sustainable."

The SLP filed against the above decision has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

In the case of Finlease Pvt Ltd. 342 ITR 169 (supra) in ITA 232/2012 judgement dt. 22.11.2012 at para 6 to 8/ it was held as follows. "6. This Court has considered the submissions of the parties. In this case the discussion by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) would reveal that the assessee has filed documents including certified copies issued by the ROC in relation to the share application affidavits of the directors, form 2 filed with the ROC by such applicants confirmations by the applicant for company's shares, certificates by auditors etc. Unfortunately, the Assessing Officer chose to base himself merely on the general inference to be drawn from the reading of the investigation report and the statement of Mr. MahesGarg. To elevate the inference which can be drawn on the basis of reading of such material into judicial conclusions would be improper, more so when the assessee produced material. The least that the Assessing Officer ought to have done was to enquire into the matter by, if necessary, invoking his powers under Section 131 summoning the share applicants or directors. No effort was made in that regard. In the absence of any such finding that the material disclosed was untrustworthy or lacked credibility the Assessing Officer merely concluded on the basis of enquiry report, which collected certain facts and the statements of Mr.Mahesh Garg that the income sought to be added fell within the description of S.68 of the Income Tax Act 1961. Having regard to the entirety of facts and circumstances, the Court is satisfied that the finding of the Tribunal in this case accords with the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in Lovely Exports (supra). The decision in this case is based on the peculiar facts which attract the ratio of Lovely Exports (supra). Where the assessee adduces evidence M/s Blue Lotus Designers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO Wd-7(4), Kol. Page 10 in support of the share application monies, it is open to the Assessing Officer to examine it and reject it on tenable grounds. In case he wishes to rely on the report of the investigation authorities, some meaningful enquiry ought to be conducted by him to establish a link between the assessee and the alleged hawala operators, such a link was shown to be present in the case of Nova Promoters & Finlease (P) Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the revenue. We are therefore not to be understood to convey that in all cases of share capital added under Section the ratio of Lovely Exports (supra) is attracted, irrespective of the facts, evidence and material."

We also note that recently the ITAT Kolkata in several cases has deleted the addition on account of share application in similar circumstances. The relevant portion of the decisions, are as follows: (a) In the case of DCIT Vs Global Mercantiles Pvt. Ltd in dated 13-01-2016, this Tribunal held as follows: “3.4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record including the detailed paper book filed by the assessee. The facts stated hereinabove remain undisputed are not reiterated herein for the sake of brevity. We find that the assessee had given the complete details about the share applicants clearly establishing their identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction proved beyond doubt and had duly discharged its onus in full. Nothing prevented the Learned AO to make enquiries from the assessing officers of the concerned share applicants for which every details were very much made available to him by the assessee. We find that the reliance placed by the Learned Ld. CIT(1) on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Lovely Exports (P) Ud reported in (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC) is very well founded, wherein, it has been very clearly held that the only obligation of the company receiving the share application money is to prove the existence of the shareholders and for which the assessee had discharged the onus of proving their existence and also the source of share application money received. 3.4.

The last ground to be decided in this appeal of the Revenue is as to whether the Learned CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition u/s 68 of the Act made in respect of allotment of shares to 20 individuals for an amount of Rs.57,00,000/- in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4.

The brief fact of this issue is that the assessee had received share application monies from 20 individuals in the earlier year which were kept in share application money account. During the asst year under appeal, the assessee allotted shares to these 20 individuals out of transferring the monies from share application money account to share capital account. The details of 20 individuals are reflected in page 6 & 7 of the Learned CIT(A) order. The Learned AO asked the assessee to produce the shareholders before him. He found that the assessee did not do so but furnished copies of pay orders used for payments to the assessee company and also furnished income tax particulars and balance sheets of all the shareholders. The Learned AO on analyzing all the balance sheets observed that the shareholders have paltry income and small savings and none of them have any bank account and huge cash balances were shown in their hands out of which Pay orders were obtained. Based on this, the Learned AO concluded that these shareholders do not have creditworthiness to invest in the assessee company and brought the entire sum of Rs. 57,00,000/- to tax as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 4.2. On first appeal, the Learned CIT(A) observed that entire share application monies of Rs.57,00,000/- we received during the previous year 2004-05 relevant to Asst Year 2005-06 from 20 persons and the shares were allotted to them during the asst year under appeal. He observed that the assessee had furnished details of the share applicants giving the date wise receipts, mode of payment, amount, name, address, income tax returns, PA No. of share applicants along with their balance sheet. The Learned CITA also observed that the assessee in its reply to show cause notice before the Learned AO had requested him to use his power and authority for the physical appearance of the shareholders which was not exercised by the Learned AO. Instead the Learned AO continued to insist on the assessee to produce the shareholders before him. He ultimately concluded that the assessee had duly discharged its onus of providing complete details of the shareholders and in any case, no addition could be made u/s 68 of the Act in the asst year under appeal as no share application monies were received during the asst year under appeal. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before us by filing the following ground:-