Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI M. BALAGANESH & SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S.
O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in AY 2014-15, arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)’, in short] in Appeal No. 445/16- 17dated 06.06.2018 against the order of assessment passed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 27.12.2016 by the Assessing Officer, ITO, Ward-7(1), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’).
The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the Learned CITA was justified in deleting the addition made in the sum of Rs 10.40 crores on account of share capital and share premium received by the assessee in the facts and circumstances of the case.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. During the year under consideration, the assessee company was in receipt of share capital and share premium to the tune of Rs 2.60 crores and 7.80 crores respectively totalling to Rs 10.40 crores. These sums were received from 12 investor companies which are tabulated in Page 2 of the assessment order. The assessee gave the name and address of the investors together with their PAN, ITR, bank statements and confirmations from the respective investors. The assessee also submitted that the monies were received through regular banking channels and the fact of investments had been duly reflected in the balance sheet of the investor companies. Accordingly, the assessee pleaded that genuineness of transactions, credit worthiness of investors together with their identity stands duly established within the meaning of section 68 of the Act. The learned AO, in order to examine the veracity of the details furnished by the assessee, proceeded to make independent examination by issuing notices under section 133(6) of the Act to all the 12 investors. All the 12 investors directly responded to the learned AO by furnishing the requisite details in response to notice issued under section 133(6) of the Act. The learned AO, not being satisfied, issued summons to the directors of the investor companies. Since the directors of the investor companies were stationed in Kolkata, they requested the learned AO by sending an email seeking permission to appear before an officer in Kolkata in person. This reply of the directors was not acceded to by the learned AO and learned AO proceeded to conclude that the genuineness of the transactions and credit worthiness of the investors were not established by the assessee and made an addition under section 68 of the Act in respect of share capital and share premium to the tune of Rs 10.40 crores and completed the assessment.
The learned CITA observed that assessee had furnished all the details that are required to prove the three ingredients of section 68 of the Act. Further the transactions of investments were duly reflected in the balance sheet of the investor companies, thereby proving the genuineness of the transaction. The learned CITA considering the behavior of the assessee and response of the investors in response to notice under section 133(6) of the Act deleted the addition. Aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before us.
It is a fact that the assessee on its part had provided the all the documents such as name, address, PAN, ITRs, bank statements, confirmation of balance of the investor companies. The fact of making the investment in the assessee company were duly reflected in the balance sheet of the investors and monies were received by the assessee through regular banking channels. Hence, this proves the genuineness of the transaction. All the investor companies had furnished their bank statements before the learned AO from which it is very clear that they had sufficient funds to make investment in the assessee company thereby proving the credit worthiness of the investor companies. Hence, we hold that all the three ingredients of section 68 of the Act stands clearly established by the assessee. Further, it is a fact that all the investor companies directly responded to the learned AO by furnishing the requisite details under section 133(6) of the Act. Further in response to the summons issued to the directors of the investor companies , the directors had sent an email to the assessing officer requesting them to make their appearance before an officer in Kolkata. Since the directors were stationed in Kolkata, they made Page | 3 this request before the assessing officer. This request was not acceded to by the learned AO. In any case, merely because summons had not been responded or honored by the directors of the investor companies, that cannot lead to draw an adverse inference against the assessee herein. Reliance in this regard was rightly placed by the learned AR on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Orissa Corporation reported in 159 ITR 78 (SC). Hence, we hold that assessee had clearly established all the three ingredients of section 68 of the Act and there is no case for making any addition by disbelieving the share capital and share premium. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the learner CITA. Accordingly, the ground raised by the revenue is dismissed.
In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 13/03/2025.