Case Law Details
DCIT Vs Shree Swaminarayan Infrastructure Private Limited (ITAT Rajkot)
In this case, assessee company has issued shares of Rs.2,92,00,000/-being 7300 equity shares of Rs.10/- each at a premium of Rs.3990/- per share and thus there is increase in share capital of Rs.73,000/-. Over and above that the company has collected premium of Rs.2,91,27,000/-. Before the lowers authorities, assessee has filed copy of the income tax return, PAN numbers of the concerned persons and also filed bank statements. But learned AO doubted the creditworthiness of the concerned persons. In support of its contention, the assessee/persons have not filed all the relevant details before the lower authorities, meaning thereby, the assessee has not discharged his onus. In our considered opinion, the abovesaid details do not prove the creditworthiness of the persons those have paid premium. So, in view of the above, we set aside this matter back to the file of the AO to revisit the issue and assessee is directed to file relevant details of the persons those have paid premium to the extent that they had creditworthiness of such huge payment. The learned CIT(A) has not passed reasoned and detailed order. Therefore, the captioned appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT RAJKOT
The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jamnagar (‘CIT(A)’ in short), dated 17.02.2016 arising in the assessment order dated 17.03.2015 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY. 2012-13.
2. The grounds of appeal raised by Revenue read as under:
“1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.2,92,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in treating the share subscription amounting to Rs.2,92,00,000/- received by the assessee company as genuine.
3. On the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer.”
3. The facts of the case are that the assessee is a contractor and machinery hirer for infrastructure projects. The AO has discussed in the assessment order that during the year assessee company has issued shares of Rs.2,92,00,000/- being 7300 equity shares of Rs.10/- each at a premium of Rs.3990/- per share and thus there is increase in share capital of Rs.73,000/-. Over and above that the company has collected premium of Rs.2,91,27,000/-. Therefore, the assessee was asked to establish the identity of the persons, genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness as per section 68 of the Act. In response to the notices u/s. 133(6) to the concerned persons they have filed copy of income tax return. On perusal of income tax return, it was found that these people are not creditworthy to invest such large amount in a Pvt. Ltd. Company. Therefore, the assessee was again asked to establish the creditworthiness of these persons so that provisions of Section 68 of the Act are not attracted. The AO was not satisfied with assessee’s explanation. Therefore, the amount of Rs.2,92,00,000/- was added to the total income of assessee.
4. Thereafter, the assessee preferred first statutory appeal before the CIT(A) who partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.
5. Now, Revenue came before us.
6. We have gone through the relevant record and impugned order and heard both the parties. In this case, assessee company has issued shares of Rs.2,92,00,000/-being 7300 equity shares of Rs.10/- each at a premium of Rs.3990/- per share and thus there is increase in share capital of Rs.73,000/-. Over and above that the company has collected premium of Rs.2,91,27,000/-. Before the lowers authorities, assessee has filed copy of the income tax return, PAN numbers of the concerned persons and also filed bank statements. But learned AO doubted the creditworthiness of the concerned persons. In support of its contention, the assessee/persons have not filed all the relevant details before the lower authorities, meaning thereby, the assessee has not discharged his onus. In our considered opinion, the abovesaid details do not prove the creditworthiness of the persons those have paid premium. So, in view of the above, we set aside this matter back to the file of the AO to revisit the issue and assessee is directed to file relevant details of the persons those have paid premium to the extent that they had creditworthiness of such huge payment. The learned CIT(A) has not passed reasoned and detailed order. Therefore, the captioned appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes.
7. In the result, the captioned appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes.
This Order pronounced in Open Court on 25/03/2022
