By Ajay R. Singh
Advocate
15. The Pr. CIT-1 vs. M/s Ami
Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd. [Income tax Appeal No. 1231 of 2017] Date of
order: 29th January, 2020 (Bombay High Court)
DCIT-1(1) vs. M/s Ami Industries
(India) Pvt. Ltd. [ITA No. 5181/Mum/2014; Date of order: 28th
August, 2016; A.Y.: 2010-11; Mum. ITAT]
Section 68 – Share application money –
The assessee had furnished PAN, ITR of the investors to prove genuineness of
the transactions – For credit worthiness of the creditors, the bank accounts of
the investors showed that they had funds – Not required to prove ‘source of the
source’ – Addition is justified [PCIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel 412 ITR 161
(SC) distinguished]
In the assessment proceedings, the A.O.
noted that the assessee had disclosed funds from three Kolkata-based companies
as share application money amounting to Rs. 34.00 crores (Parasmani Merchandise
Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 13.50 crores; Ratanmani Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 2.00 crores and
Rosberry Merchants Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 18.50 crores).
The A.O. issued a
notice to the assessee on the ground that the whereabouts of the above
companies were doubtful and their identity could not be authenticated. Thus,
the genuineness of the companies became questionable.
After considering the reply submitted
by the assessee, the A.O. treated the aforesaid amount of Rs. 34 crores as
money from unexplained sources and added the same to the income of the assessee
as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act.
Aggrieved by the order, the assessee
preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) held that the assessee had
discharged its burden u/s 68 by proving the identity of the creditors; the
genuineness of the transactions; and the credit worthiness of the creditors.
Consequently, the first appellate authority set aside the addition made by the
A.O.
Being aggrieved by the order of the
CIT(A), the Revenue filed an appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that
the A.O. had referred the matter to the investigation wing of the Department at
Kolkata for making inquiries about the three creditors from whom share
application money was received. Though the report from the investigation wing
was received, the Tribunal noted that the same was not considered by the A.O.
despite mentioning of the same in the assessment order; besides, he had not
provided a copy of the same to the assessee. In the report by the investigation
wing, it was mentioned that the companies were in existence and had filed income
tax returns for the previous year under consideration but the A.O. recorded
that these creditors had very meagre income as disclosed in their returns of
income and, therefore, he doubted the credit-worthiness of the three creditors.
Finally, the Tribunal held that as per
the provisions of section 68 of the Act, for any cash credit appearing in the
books of an assessee, the assessee is required to prove the following: (a)
Identity of the creditor, (b) Genuineness of the transaction, and (c)
Credit-worthiness of the party. In this case, the assessee had already proved
the identity of the share applicants by furnishing their PAN and copies of
their IT returns filed for the A.Y. 2010-11.
Regarding the genuineness of the
transaction, the assessee had filed a copy of the bank accounts of the three
share applicants from which the share application money was paid and the copy
of the account of the assessee in which the said amount was deposited and which
had been received by RTGS. Regarding the credit-worthiness of the parties, it
has been proved from the bank accounts of the three companies that they had the
funds to make payments for the share application money and a copy of the
resolution passed in the meetings of their Boards of Directors. Regarding ‘the source
of the source’, the A.O. has already made inquiries through the DDI
(Investigation), Kolkata and collected all the materials required which proved
‘the source of the source’, though as per the settled legal position on this
issue the assessee need not prove ‘the source of the source’. The A.O. has not
brought any cogent material or evidence on record to indicate that the
shareholders were benamidars or fictitious persons, or that any part of
the share capital represented the company’s own income from undisclosed
sources. Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) was upheld.
Aggrieved by the order of the ITAT, the
Revenue filed an appeal to the High Court. The Revenue submitted that it cannot
be said that the assessee had discharged the burden to prove the
credit-worthiness of the three parties. Further, it contented that the assessee
is also required to prove ‘the source of the source’. In this connection, the
Department placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Pr. CIT
vs. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd.
The assessee submitted that from the
facts and circumstances of the case, it is quite evident that the assessee has
discharged its burden to prove the identity of the creditors, the genuineness
of the transactions and the credit-worthiness of the creditors. The legal
position is very clear inasmuch as the assessee is only required to explain the
source and not ‘the source of the source’. The decision of the Supreme Court in
NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) is not the case law for
the aforesaid proposition. In fact, the said decision nowhere states that the
assessee is required to prove ‘the source of the source’. Further, it is also a
settled proposition that the assessee is not required to prove ‘the source of
the source’. In fact, this position has been clarified in the recent decision
in Gaurav Triyugi Singh vs. Income Tax Officer-24(3)(1)2 dated 22nd
January, 2020.
The Court found that the identity of
the creditors was not in doubt. The assessee had furnished the PAN, copies of
the income tax returns of the creditors, as well as copies of the bank accounts
of the three creditors in which the share application money was deposited in
order to prove the genuineness of the transactions. Insofar as the
credit-worthiness of the creditors was concerned, the Tribunal had recorded
that the bank accounts of the creditors showed that they had funds to make
payments for share application money and, in this regard, resolutions were also
passed by the Board of Directors of the three creditors. Although the assessee
was not required to prove ‘the source of the source’, nonetheless, the Tribunal
took the view that the A.O. had made inquiries through the investigation wing
of the Department at Kolkata and collected all the materials which proved ‘the
source of the source’.
In NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd.
(Supra), the A.O. had made an independent and detailed inquiry,
including survey of the investor companies. The field report revealed that the
shareholders were either non-existent or lacked credit-worthiness. It is in
these circumstances that the Supreme Court had held that the onus to establish
the identity of the investor companies was not discharged by the assessee. The
aforesaid decision is, therefore, clearly distinguishable on the facts of the
present case. Therefore, the first appellate authority had returned a clear
finding of fact that the assessee had discharged its onus of proving the
identity of the creditors, the genuineness of the transactions and the
credit-worthiness of the creditors, which finding of fact stood affirmed by the
Tribunal. There are, thus, concurrent findings of fact by the two lower
appellate authorities. Under these circumstances, the appeal is dismissed.
