ITO Vs Amodini Vyapar Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata)
ITAT Kolkata held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act rightly deleted by CIT(A) since assessee duly established identity and creditworthiness of the investors and genuineness of the transactions.
Facts- The present appeal is preferred by the revenue. The only issued raised by the Revenue is against the deletion of addition of ₹3,55,65,468/- as made by the ld. AO u/s 68 of the Act towards unexplained cash credit being share capital/ share premium.
Conclusion- Hon’ble Mumbai High Court in the case of CIT Vs Orchid Industries (P) Ltd (supra) by holding that provisions of section 68 of the Act cannot be invoked for the reasons that the person has not appeared before the AO where the assessee had produced on records documents to establish genuineness of the party such as PAN, financial and bank statements showing share application money.
Held that in the instant case before us also, the assessee has furnished all the evidences proving identity and creditworthiness of the investors and genuineness of the transactions but AO has not commented on these evidences filed by the assessee. Besides the investors have also furnished complete details/evidences before the AO which proved the identity, creditworthiness of investors and genuineness of the transactions. Under these facts and circumstances and considering underlying facts in the light of ratio laid down in the decisions as discussed above , we are inclined to uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A) by dismissing the appeal of the revenue. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
