BOMBAY HIGH COURT - COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. M/S. GAGANDEEP INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1613 OF

2014 - 20TH MARCH, 2017

Core Fact of the Case :………..Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.7,53,50,000/under Section 68 of the Act. being share capital/share premium received during the year when the Assessing Officer held the same as unexplained cash credit?

During the previous relevant to the subject Assessment Year the Respondent assessee had increased its share capital from Rs. 2,50,000/to Rs.83.75 lakhs. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the respondent had collected share premium to the extent of Rs.6.69 crores. Consequently he called upon the respondent to justify the charging of share premium at Rs.190/ per share. ……….The respondent furnished the list of its shareholders, copy of the share application form, copy of share certificate and Form no.2 filed with the Registrar of Companies. The justification for charging share premium was on the basis of the future prospects of the business of the respondent assessee.

The Assessing Officer did not accept the explanation/justification of the respondent and invoked Section 68 of the Act to treat the amount of Rs.7.53 crores i.e. the aggregate of the issue price and the premium on the shares issued as unexplained cash credit within the meaning of Section 68 of the Act.

The identity was established by the very fact that the detailed names, addresses of the shareholders, PAN numbers, bank details and confirmatory letters were filed. The genuineness of the transaction was established by filing a copy of share application form, the form filed with the Registrar of Companies and as also bank details of the shareholders and their confirmations which would indicate both the genuineness as also the capacity of the shareholders to subscribe to the shares.

Summarised Judgment: ……..In the above circumstances and particularly in view of the concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, the proposed question of law does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus not entertained.

Analysis: In the case of JSM also all documents have been furnished to prove the genuineness of the share holding companies and no adverse inference drawn Ld. A.O.

* As the detailed judgment runs into several pages, it is not printed.