| |
| The Tax Publishers2019 TaxPub(DT) 0203 (Mum-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 68
As assessee had filed various evidences such as PAN details, bank account statements, audited financial statements and income-tax acknowledgments of share applicants to substantiate receipt of share premium, AO was not justified in making addition under section 68 merely for the reason that parties did not appear before AO in response to notice issued under section 133(6).
|
Income from undisclosed sources - Addition under section 68 - Share premium - Non-appearance of parties
AO in order to verify genuineness of share premium received by assessee-company issued summons under section 133(6). However, parties did not attend proceedings before AO. Therefore, AO treated share premium as unexplained cash credit under section 68.Held: Assessee had filed various evidences such as PAN details, bank account statements, audited financial statements and income-tax acknowledgments of share applicants. Thus, assessee had duly discharged onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness of share applicants and genuineness of share transactions only because parties did not appear before AO, this would not negate the case of assessee and, therefore, AO was not justified in making addition under section 68.
Relied on:CIT v. Orchid Industries (P) Ltd. (2017) 397 ITR 136 (Bom.), CIT v. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P) Ltd. (2017) 394 ITR 680 (Bom-HC) : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 1238 (Bom-HC) & Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR (SC)
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.
A.Y. :
INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 69C
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|