Home ›

Search Results For: unexplained cash credit

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: , ,
DATE: October 14, 2020 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 31, 2020 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 68 Bogus Cash Credits: The Revenue can examine the source of the source. Merely pointing out to a source and the source admitting that it has made the payments is not sufficient to discharge the burden placed on the assessees by s. 68. Otherwise, it would be sufficient for assessees to simply persuade some credit-less person to own up having made such huge payments and thereby evade payment of tax on the specious plea that the Revenue can always recover the tax from such credit-less source. The explanation has to be plausible and backed by reliable evidence. 'Fantastic or unacceptable' explanations are not acceptable (All imp verdicts on s. 68 referred)

If the ITAT were to have considered the aforesaid circumstances, which, according to us, the ITAT was duty-bound to, we are quite sure that the ITAT would not have, nevertheless, found the so-called explanation of the assessees acceptable or in compliance with the provisions of Section 68 of the said Act. Rather we are inclined to believe, that the ITAT too, would have found the so-called explanation of the assessees too fantastic to deserve any acceptance. In Mussadilal Ram Bharose 1987(2) SCC 39, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has cautioned against acceptance of any ‘fantastic’ or ‘unacceptable’ explanations in tax matters

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 10, 2020 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 31, 2020 (Date of publication)
AY: 1999-2000 to 2002-03
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 69/69A HSBC Bank Black Money: The AO has to prove that the money belongs to the assessee. If the assessee files necessary evidences to prove that the unexplained money does not belongs to him, the onus shift to the revenue to prove that the unexplained money in fact belongs to the assessee. Unless the AO proves that unexplained money is belongs to the person, he cannot make any addition in the hands of the assessee. The fact that the assessee is a joint holder of the bank account does not mean that the money belongs to him if the evidence suggests that the money belongs to the other holder

It is the case of the Ld. AO that account with HSBC bank , Geneva is opened by resident Indian and black money earned by such resident Indian has been stashed abroad without paying taxes/disclosing income in India. But, fact remains that in the instant case, the account was opened in 1998, when the assessee himself and Mr. Dipak Galani permanently resided in outside India for 30 years and had no intention to come to India at that time. Further, both of them have no source of income in India, during the course of their residence abroad. Therefore, we are of the view that entire motive as presented by the Ld. AO defines all logic of opening of a secret bank account in Geneva, by NRI to stash unaccounted income taxable in India fails. The ld. AO mechanically disregarding all explanations furnished by the assessee as to the ownership of the account along with the corroborative materials is contrary to the settled position of law, because, once assessee has provided a reasonable explanation about ownership, then the onus was on the Ld. AO to establish that account belongs to the assessee.

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: February 18, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 9, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2012-13
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 68 Bogus Share Premium: No reason to interfere. SLP dismissed. High Court held there is no limitation on the amount of premium that can be charged. The AO cannot question the transaction merely because he thinks the investor could have managed by paying a lesser amount as share premium. It is the prerogative of the Board of Directors to decide the premium and it is the wisdom of the shareholder whether they want to subscribe to shares at such a premium or not. S. 68 does not apply as the funds were received through banking channels and the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the investors was established

Issuing the share at a premium was a commercial decision. It is the prerogative of the Board of Directors of a company to decide the premium amount and it is the wisdom of shareholder whether they want to subscribe the shares at such a premium or not. This was a mutual decision between both the companies. In day to day market, unless and until, the rates is fixed by any Govt. Authority or unless there is any restriction on the amount of share premium under any law, the price of the shares is decided on the mutual understanding of the parties concerned. Once the genuineness, creditworthiness and identity are established, the revenue should not justifiably claim to put itself in the armchair of a businessman or in the position of the Board of Directors and assume the role of ascertaining how much is a reasonable premium having regard to the circumstances of the case

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — 3 Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: March 26, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 29, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 68 Bogus Share Capital: Merely because the investment was considerably large and several corporate structures were either created or came into play in routing the investment in the assessee through a Mauritius entity would not be sufficient to brand the transaction as colourable device. The assessee cannot be asked to prove the source of source (PCIT Vs. NRA Iron & Steel 103 TM.com 48 (SC) referred)

As is well known in the context of Section 68 of the Act, the basic duty would be on the assessee to establish the genuineness of the transaction, credit worthiness of the investor and the source of funds. Equally well settled principle through series of judgments is that the Department cannot insist on the assessee establishing source of the source.

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — 1 Comment ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 8, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 15, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 68 Bogus Share Capital: Merely presenting of documents & making payment through bank or appearance by director before the AO & admitting fact of share application made is in itself not sufficient to justify the genuineness of the transaction. It is against human probability that anyone will invest and pay share premium in a company without net worth or future prospectus. All applicants with common address are being controlled remotely by one person. These applicants are all paper companies not having sufficient worth and created for providing entries of share application money or share capital or loans by way of accommodation entries (NDR Promoter 410 ITR 379 (Del) & NRA Iron & Steel 103 TM.com 48 (SC) followed)

It is against the human probability that anyone will invest and pay share premium of Rs. 50/- per share without having any net worth of the company or any future prospectus of earning by the company. The current directors have not been able to justify, why the shares were purchased at high premium, without corresponding valuation of the company, which was having meagre income. It is impossible that directors of these nine companies are having either of the two addresses of the Paharganj area of New Delhi. In normal circumstances it is not possible until unless all these companies are being controlled remotely by one person. All the circumstances manifests that these are all paper companies not having sufficient worth and created for providing entries of share application money or share capital or loans by way of accommodation entries

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: November 16, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 24, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2012-13
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 68 Bogus share premium: If the overwhelming evidence in the form of audited accounts, ROC Form 2 & ROC Form 20B shows the 'nature' of receipt to be share premium, it has to be taken to be so. If the Department wants to contend that what is apparent is not real, the onus is on it to prove that it was the assessee's own money which was routed through a third party. S. 68 does not (before & after the 2012 amendment) envisage the valuation of share premium. Consequently, the AO has no jurisdiction to determine whether the share premium is reasonable or not (Pratik Syntex (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO 94 taxmann.com 12 (Mum) distinguished)

Even amendment to section 68 brought by Finance Act, 2012 does not refer to valuation. The insertion of the proviso to section 68 of the Act by Finance Act, 2012 casts an additional onus on the closely held companies to prove source in the shareholders subscribing to the shares of companies. During the course of the hearing, the Ld Counsel explained that the explanatory memorandum to the Finance Bill 2012 makes it clear that the additional onus is only with respect to source of funds in the hands of the shareholders before the transaction can be accepted as a genuine one. Even the amended section does not envisage the valuation of share premium. This is further evident from a parallel amendment in section 56(2) of the Act which brings in its ambit so much of the share premium as charged by a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, as it exceeds the fair market value of the shares. If one accepts the Ld CIT-DR’s contentions that section 68 of the Act can he applied where the transaction is proved to be that of a share allotment that here the valuation for charging premium is not justified, it will make the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act redundant and nugatory. This cannot be the intention of the Legislature especially when the amendments in the two sections are brought in at the same time

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: November 16, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 21, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07, 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 68 Black Money in HSBC Bank Account (i) Non-residents are not required to disclose their foreign bank accounts and assets to Indian income-tax authorities (ii) The assessee cannot be asked to prove the negative that the credits found in HSBC Bank is not sourced out of income derived from India (iii) the Govt / legislature never intended to tax foreign accounts of non residents (iv) mere holding of an account outside India does not have led to the conclusion that the amount is tax evaded

It is very clear from the clarifications issued by the Government itself that the legislature does not wish to take any action in respect of non residents holding foreign bank accounts. Further, even in the excel utility of return of income in the income-tax department website, the moment a person fills his residential status as non resident, the excel utility prevents filling of columns pertaining to foreign assets. Even, the Hon’ble Finance Minister has clarified that all accounts in foreign bank may not be illegal as they may belong to NRI. Thus, even the government has acknowledged the fact that an NRI foreign bank account is not illegal

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 31, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 2, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07, 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 69A Black Money: If the assessee is a discretionary beneficiary of the HSBC Bank Account and is not the owner, addition u/s 69A cannot be sustained. In the case of a discretionary trust, the income of the trust cannot be added in the hands of the beneficiary. The trustees are the representative assessees who are liable to be taxed for the income of the trust (All judgements considered)

We find that addition has been made by the AO U/s 69A of the Act to justify the addition on account of peak balance. We agree with the contentions of the Ld. AR that it is sine qua non for invoking section 69A of the IT Act., the assessee must be found to be the owner of money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable articles and whereas in the present case the money is owned and held by Mr. Dipendu Bapalal Shah a foreign resident in an account HSBC, Geneva and also admitted that he is the owner of the money in the HSBC Account Geneva

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 12, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 16, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 68 Bogus share capital: If (a) the assessee has furnished the Name, Address, PAN no and Share Application Form to prove that the shares were allotted to the applicants and (b) the bank statement show that money was received through banking channels and there were no immediate withdrawals to suggest that the share application amounts have been returned back to these parties in cash, it means the assessee has discharged the primary onus cast upon it to prove the identity, capacity and genuineness of transactions

The assessee has furnished the Name, Address, PAN no and Share Application Form to prove that the shares were allotted to the applicants. The assessee has also furnished its bank statement to show that the money was received through banking channels and there were no immediate withdrawals from the banks which shows that the share application amounts have not been returned back to these parties in cash. Thus, the assessee has discharged the primary onus cast upon it to prove the identity, capacity and genuineness of transactions. We also find that the CIT(A) provided opportunity to assessee to cross examine Shri Mukesh Choksi by sending the matter to AO for remand report. During remand proceeding, the AO provided opportunity to assessee to cross examine Shri Mukesh Choksi and who in turn during cross examination admitted having invested in assessee company by these two concerns

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 1, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 10, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2004-05
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 68 Bogus share capital: Failure by the AO to offer cross-examination of the persons whose statements are relied upon means that no adverse inference can be drawn against the assessee. Dept's plea for a remand is not acceptable if the assessee has discharged primary onus (Nova Promoters 342 ITR 169 (Del) & Jansampark Advertising 375 ITR 373 (Del) distinguished). Paradise Inland 98 CCH 0417 followed

The assessee was supplied with the seized material at the fag end of the assessment proceedings and assessee sought opportunity to cross examine these persons for rebuttal of the allegation. However, the AO did not provide any opportunity to the assessee to cross examine these persons on behalf of assessee to find out the truth. Therefore, such statements cannot be read in evidence against the assessee. We rely upon decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kishanchand Chelaram 125 ITR 713 (SC) and of Bombay High Court in case of Paradise Inland Shipping Pvt. Ltd

Read more ›