THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. GUJARAT COASTAL CONSTRUCTION LTD., VADODARA

At the outset itself, it was stated that all three appeals have come up before us in identical background of facts; that in all three cases reassessment proceedings were resorted to in the case of the assessee and orders passed under section 147 of the Act. The addition being , 480 and 590/Ahd/2020 3 made on account of share capital introduced in the assessee- company, during each of the impugned years, source of which was alleged to have not been satisfactorily explained. The addition was made in terms of section 68 of the Act on account of unexplained credits, and quantum of addition in each of the assessment years was as under: Asst.Year 2009-10 Rs.2,02,83,000/- Asst.Year 2010-11 Rs.1,88,69,240/- Asst.Year 2013-14 Rs.2,17,66,800/-

The basis for making the addition by the Assessing Officer (AO), it was contended, was the same, noting that an apparently unreasonably huge amount of share premium was taken on the shares issued, despite the fact that the assessee’s financials were weak and did not support such a huge premium.

The assessee’s explanation, it was pointed out, in all three years was the same, that the share application money had been given by one Shri Mandhatasinh M. Jadeja (“MMJ” for short), who was the director of the company, and the assessee substantiated this claim with relevant documentary evidences, but the AO found that the credit-worthiness of the share applicant/shareholder was not proved by the assessee, and in the light of the same therefore, finding that the assessee had failed to discharge its onus of proving the genuineness of the transaction of the share capital, all the share capital introduced in the assessee-company in each of the years was added to the income of the assessee.

The ld.counsel for the assessee stated that since the share applicant in all three years is the same, the explanation of the assessee regarding the share application is also the same, and the addition made to the income of the assessee is also for the identical reason, therefore, in the first-two years, where the addition has been deleted by the ld.CIT(A) on merits, his arguments would be identical. that in Asst.Year 2013-14, since only legal issue was involved, separate arguments needed to be made.

The ld.DR fairly agreed with the above. Accordingly, the appeals were proceeded to be heard with; The appeals of the Revenue for Asst.Year 2009-10 and 2010-11 were first taken up together for hearing. Since admittedly, the issue involved in both years are , 480 and 590/Ahd/2020 5 identical, we shall be dealing with the Department’s appeal for Asst.Year 2009-10 and our decision rendered therein will apply pari passu to Asst.Year 2010-11 also.

As stated above, since the solitary issue involved in the appeal relates to the deletion of addition made of share application money under section 68 of the Act, the ground accordingly raised by the Revenue reads as under:

Before proceeding further, certain facts relating to the issue need to be brought on record.

During the impugned year, the assessee had received Rs.2,02,83,000/- as share application money. The entire amount was stated to be received from one Shri Mandhatasinh M. Jadeja (“MMJ” for short), who was a director of the assessee-company. The assessee submitted confirmation letter of Shri “MMJ”, copy of acknowledgment of return of income for the impugned year of “MMJ” i.e. Asst.Year 2009-10, copies of his bank account entries to substantiate the genuineness of the transaction. The AO noted from the return of income of “MMJ” for the impugned year that he reported a total income of only Rs.10,650/-. Accordingly, the assessee was asked to , 480 and 590/Ahd/2020 6 establish credit-worthiness of the share applicant. The assessee stated that entire money was paid by the share applicant through banking channel. The AO, however, noted from the bank account of “MMJ” that immediately before the issuance of cheques for investment in the assessee-company there were credits of the same or higher amounts in the bank account of “MMJ”. The data in this regard is tabulated at page no.4 and 5 of his order. He noted that some of the amounts were deposited in cash. Accordingly, show cause notice was issued to the assesse as to why the entire share application money be not added to the income of the assessee under section 68 of the Act, in the absence of satisfactory explanation for the source of the same. The assessee submitted response, which contained the details of the share application money received from “MMJ”, the person from whom the amounts were received by “MMJ” along with copies of bank entries of “MMJ”. The AO however held that since the assessee had not explained the nature or purpose of the amounts given by various persons to “MMJ”, credit-worthiness of “MMJ” had not been established. He also noted from the financial statement of the assessee-company that it had no turnover since inception i.e. FY 2000-01 and noting that no prudent person would invest such a huge amount in a company, which had not yet started earning income, he found the premium of Rs.1,000/- for which the shares were issued by the assessee-company to be unbelievable. He accordingly held that no proper, reasonable and acceptable explanation had been given by the assessee-company of the source of share application money introduced in the assessee-company, and accordingly added the same to the income of the assessee under section 68 of the Act.

Before us, the ld.DR heavily relied on the finding of the AO, pointing out particularly the finding of the AO to the effect that –

The ld.counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, pointed out that the assessee had duly demonstrated credit-worthiness of the depositor, Shri “MMJ”, by demonstrating that all investments by him were made through banking channels, and all details of the credit entries in his bank account were also furnished to the AO. He pointed out that this fact was also noted by the AO in his order wherein the details of all credits in the bank account of “MMJ” were noted to be furnished by the assessee. He contended, therefore, that the assessee had proved the credit-worthiness of Shri “MMJ” and had also gone extra length of proving the source of source also; that, therefore, the order of the ld.CIT(A) holding that the assessee has discharged its primary onus of proving the genuineness of the transaction needs to be confirmed.

Having heard contentions of both the parties, we do not find any merit in the contentions of the ld.DR that the assessee had failed to discharge its primary onus of proving the genuineness of share application money received during the impugned year.

As is evident from the above,the ld.CIT(A) records that the assessee had explained the source of investment by filing confirmation letter of the investor. The assessee had also filed PAN of the investor, his IT returns and bank transactions details. He further goes on to note that the assessee had also filed details of the amounts taken by the investor for making the investment which were reflected as credits , 480 and 590/Ahd/2020 10 in his bank account immediately before making the investment. All these evidences are noted by the Ld.CIT(A) to be filed by the assessee to the AO. There is no dispute with respect to the said facts.

Considering the same, we agree with the ld.CIT(A) that the assessee had established all the ingredients, which were necessary to prove the genuineness of the share application money received in terms of section 68 of the Act. We agree with the ld.CIT(A) that the assessee had provided the identity of the investors(PAN ,ITR filed), genuineness of the transaction(transaction shown to be done through banking channels, confirmation of the share applicant filed), as also credit-worthiness of the same by filing even details of persons who had advanced money to the investor for making the investment in the assessee-company. We completely agree with the ld.CIT(A) that the assessee had discharged the primary onus cast on it, by filing the required document and explanation before the AO.

The ld.CIT(A), we find, thereafter, notes that the assessee having so discharged its onus, it was thereafter for the AO to have conducted further inquiries before holding the assessee’s explanation as unsatisfactory, and finding no such inquiry had been done by the AO, accordingly, he went on to delete the addition made under section 68 of the Act. His finding in this regard are at page 19 of the order as under:

We are in complete agreement with the ld.CIT(A) in this regard also. The assessee having discharged primary onus by filing all necessary documents, the onus thereafter shifted to the Department, who needed to carry out further inquiry before arriving at any conclusion or finding with regard to the explanation furnished by the assessee being unsatisfactory, and having failed to do so, therefore, the ld.CIT(A), we hold, has rightly held that the explanation of the assessee cannot be said to be unsatisfactory for the purpose of invoking section 68 of the Act.

The case of the Revenue of the credit worthiness of the share applicant not being established is we find, incorrect. The assessee having demonstrated the fact of the share applicant having made investment through banking channels and having even provided details of the source from where the share applicant made the advance by giving details of all credits appearing in his bank account, the creditworthiness of the share applicant was we hold sufficiently demonstrated.

Having stated so, we find that reliance placed by the ld.DR on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of NRA Iron & Steel P.Ltd. (supra) for the proposition that mere filing of the documentary evidences would not sufficient for discharge of onus under section 68 of the Act,is not applicable to the present case. The said decision was rendered in the particular facts of case before the Hon’ble Apex Court, where the Hon’ble Court noted that though the assesse had furnished all documentary evidences, field inquiry by the department revealed that in several cases the investor companies were found to be non- existent. It is, in this background that the Hon’ble Apex Court held that mere submissions of documentary evidences would not suffice to discharge the onus cast on the assessee under section 68 of the Act.

The facts in the present case before us are clearly distinguishable, where the ld.CIT(A) has categorically noted that after , 480 and 590/Ahd/2020 14 the filing of the documentary evidences by the assessee no field inquiry was done by the AO.

In view of the above, we, therefore, find no reason to interfere in the order of the ld.CIT(A), which we find is well-reasoned order, passed after correctly appreciating the facts of the case, and applying correctly the proposition of law to it.

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

The issue raised in the above appeal is reflected in the following solitary ground:

As stated hereinabove, the above ground is identical to the sole ground raised by the Revenue for Asst.Year 2009-10, with the only difference being the quantum involved. Accordingly, following our decision in the Revenue’s case for Asst.Year 2009-10, we reject this ground of appeal and dismiss the Revenue’s appeal.

The ld.CIT(A), at para 6.1 of his order has recorded all facts relating to the examination on the issue of share application received by the assessee in the original assessment proceedings. The same are reproduced herewith:

And after considering both of them, at para 6.4 of his order, he notes that the basis for reopening of the cases, which were based on information with the AO that the investment made by “MMJ” from his bank account showed immediate credit in the bank account, before making investment, was an information which was there before the AO during the original assessment proceedings also; that this information was examined by the AO and query raised with regard to the same, to which the assessee had furnished explanation with supporting evidence at para 6.4 as under:

Based on the above finding, he therefore held at para 6.5 of his order that reopening was merely on account of change of opinion and not on account of new information coming in the possession of the AO. His finding in this regard are at para 6.5 of his order as under:

The ld.DR was unable to controvert the factual findings of the ld.CIT(A) that the information or basis, on which the reopening was resorted to by the AO was also in the possession of the AO during the original assessment proceedings, who had duly examined it, questioned the assessee regarding it, and to which the assessee had furnished explanation duly substantiated with evidences. The findings of the ld.CIT(A) therefore that there was no new information in the possession of the AO for reopening the case of the assessee, and that reopening was resorted to only on a change of opinion is therefore factually correct. Ld.DR had no quarrel with the proposition , 480 and 590/Ahd/2020 20 of law applied by the Ld.CIT(A) for holding the reassessment proceedings to be invalid since it was based on mere change of opinion of the AO and there was no new information in the possession of the AO.

In the light of the same, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld.CIT(A) quashing the assessment order passed.

In the combined result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.