×Latest Case Laws on Income Tax by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals in India
These are the latest case laws decided by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals (ITAT) of India on Income Tax which have been published recently. The case laws are open for discussion and we invite expert comments from our members on its applicability and effect on relevant issues.
09-01-2019, Accutest Research Laboratories, Section 68, 115JB, Tribunal Mumbai
The revenue has filed the present appeal against the order dated 02.04.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -22, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] relevant to the A.Y.2009- 10.
2. The revenue has raised the following grounds: -
“1. "On the fads and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred deleting the addition of Rs.14,73,73,000/- u/s, 6S of the Act. without considering the fact that the assessee failed to prove the identity, credit worthiness and genuineness of transaction even though the submission of the assesses was duly considered and found unsatisfactory during the course of assessment proceeding?"
2. '"On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CI T"(A) failed to appreciate the fact that though the shares in the books of the assesses were valued at Rs.762/-per share, yet allotment was made to the investors at a rale of Rs.1280/- per share, casting a doubt on the genuineness of transaction.'
3. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in admitting the additional documents as evidence under Rule 46A of IT Rules, ignoring that these documents were not submitted before the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings, even though sufficient opportunity
was given to the assessee to produce the evidences and the Assessing Officer had neither refused to admit these documents nor prevented the assessee by sufficient cause from producing them. Further, the Ld. CIT(A) has also ignored the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Ram Prasad Sharma Vs. CIT (1979) 119 ITR 867, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has upheld the order of the Ld. Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Hon'ble Tribunal in refusing to give permission to adduce fresh evidence."
4. "The appellant prays that the order of CIT(A) on the above ground be set aside and that of the assessing officer be restored",
5. "The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any grounds or add new grounds or add a new ground of appeal, which may be necessary, at any time before or at the lime of hearing of appeal.”
3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 30.09.2009 declaring total income to the tune of Rs.3,34,22,533/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny, therefore, notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee is engaged in the business of Scientific & Analytical Research Laboratory Formulation Development Clinical Trial. During the year under consideration, the assessee has shown the income from services to the tune of Rs.64,78,78,000/- and other related income to the tune of Rs.80,38,000/- and Net profit was computed to the tune of Rs.3,59,41,000/-. In the year, the assessee received the sum of Rs.11,17,44,000/- from M/s. Aureous South Asia Fund LIC (ASAFL) and received a sum of Rs.3,59,29,000 from M/s.Aureous Offshore India Opportunity Fund (AOIOF) as share application money and the shares were allotted to them at a substantial premium to the tune of Rs.14,73,73,000/-. The assessee company’s net worth prior to issue of shares to these companies was to the tune of Rs.14,70,70,820/- as certified by the management of the company in its Annexure-B to Valuation Report. So the amount was received by the
assessee company was more than the net worth of the company as certified by the management. Therefore necessary question was asked in view of the
questionnaire dated 20.10.2011 and finding no sufficient reply, the amount to the tune of Rs.14,73,73,000/- was treated as income of the assessee and the total income of the assessee was assessed to the tune of Rs.18,07,95,533/- and book profit u/s 115JB of the Act was assessed to the tune of Rs.3,61,79,793/ Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) who allowed the claim of the assessee, therefore, the revenue has filed the present appeal before us.
4. All the issues are inter-connected, therefore, are being taken up together for adjudication. The revenue has challenged the deletion of the addition of Rs.11,73,73,000/- u/s 68 of the Act. The Ld. Representative of the revenue has argued that the assessee has failed to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction but the CIT(A) has wrongly allowed the claim of the assessee, therefore, the finding of the CIT(A) is wrong against law and facts and is liable to be set aside. It is