Section 68 – Cash credits – Share application money – Identity, genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of persons from whom assessee received funds – Allegation by AO about evasion of tax without any supporting evidence, is not justified.

1.  1.    
The Pr. CIT-1 vs. Pushti
Consultants Pvt Ltd [Income tax Appeal no 1332 of 2016 Dated: 6^th February, 2019 (Bombay High Court)]. 

[Pushti
Consultants Pvt Ltd vs. DCIT-1(2); dated 23^rd March, 2015 ; ITA. No
4963/Mum/2012, AY 2008-09, Bench : C , Mum. 
ITAT ]

Section
68 – Cash credits – Share application money – Identity, genuineness of
transaction and creditworthiness of persons from whom assessee received funds –
Allegation by AO about evasion of  tax
without any supporting evidence, is not justified.

During
the course of the scrutiny proceedings, the A.O noticed that the assessee had
received share application money of Rs. 2.20 crore during the year under
assessment. The assessee substantiated its claim of share application money of
Rs. 2.20 crore received from Speed Trade Securities Pvt Ltd (“STSPL”
for short) by filing Board resolution and a letter from STSPL. The assessee
also filed details consequent to the summons issued u/s. 131 of the Act to the
director of STSPL. However, the A.O was not convinced with the same on the
ground that the board resolution of STSPL mentions that it will pay 50% of the
share application money i.e Rs. 2.20 crore and if the balance 50% of share
application money is not paid before 30.9.2008, the amount paid as share application
money will stand forfeited by the assessee. The A.O noted that STSPL has
sufficient funds to the extent of Rs. 14.33 crore available with it on
31.3.2009 (the extended period within which the balance amount of the share
application money has to be paid). In spite of having such huge funds at its
disposal, STSPL has allowed its investment to go in waste and claim loss in its
profit and loss account.

The A.O held that the
entire act of obtaining share application money and having it forfeited was an attempt
to evade tax. Thus, AO came to the conclusion that the share application money
was in fact the assessee’s own funds which were introduced under the garb of
share application money. Therefore,made an addition of Rs. 2.20 crore to
assessee’s income.

Being
aggrieved by the order of the A.O, the assessee filed an appeal to the CIT(A).
The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal upholding the view of the A.O and inter alia
placing reliance upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of McDowell
& Co Ltd vs. Commercial Tax Officer1 (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC) as being
applicable to the  facts of this case,
thus, dismissing the assessee’s appeal.

On
further appeal of the assessee, the Tribunal held that the evidence on record
established the identity, capacity and genuineness of the share application
money received from STSPL. This is on the basis of the fact that the amounts
were received through proper banking channels, the ledger accounts, bank
statement and audited annual accounts of STSPL were also submitted which
supported the case of the assessee. Further the valuation report/certificate of
a Chartered Accountant to the effect that the valuation of shares would be Rs.
20.83 per share and therefore, the receipt of share application money at the aggregate
price of Rs. 20 i.e Rs. 10 as face value and Rs. 10 as premium was perfectly in
order. It also recorded the fact that the application money had been paid by
STSPL by selling its own investments/shares in the stock exchange through its
broker Satco Securities and Financial Ltd (Satco) and had received the money
from Satco for sale of its investments/shares. The statement of Bank of Baroda,
the banker of Satco reflected the payments to STSPL for sale of its own
investments/shares of stock exchange was also produced. In the aforesaid view,
the impugned order held that the investment of Rs. 2.20 crore by STSPL on the
basis of evidence on record was established, as the identity, capacity and
genuineness stood proved. In the above view, the impugned order allowed the
assessee’s appeal.

Being
aggrieved with the ITAT order, the Revenue filed an appeal to the High Court.
The Court held that the assessee has gone beyond the requirement of the law as
existing in the subject assessment year 2008-09 by having explained the source
in terms of section 68 of the Act. Besides, the reliance by the CIT (A) on the
decision of McDowell (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the
present case. The Apex Court in decisions in the cases of Union of India
& Anr. vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan & 
Anr2 and Vodafone International Holdings 2 (2003) 263 ITR 706
(SC) B.V. vs. Union of India & Anr.3 also held that principles laid
down in the case of McDowell (supra) is not applicable across the board
to discard an act which is valid in law upon some hypothetical assessment of
the real motive of the assessee. Thus, imputing a plan on the part of the
assessee and STSPL to evade tax without any supporting evidence in the face of
the detailed facts recorded by the impugned order of the Tribunal, is not
justified. We find that the impugned order of the Tribunal being essentially a
finding of fact which is not shown to be perverse does not give rise to any
substantial of law. Hence, not entertained. Accordingly, the appeal is
dismissed.