Section 68 of the income tax Act, 1961 — Cash Credit — Amounts received for share subscription is not hit by Section 68 of the Act as the identity, capacity of the shareholder is proved.[2019] 52 ITCD 80 (BOM)
Facts: Being aggrieved of the order of Tribunal, revenue went on appeal before High Court and raised the question of law that “Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the decision of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 14,50,00,000/-?”
Held, that it was found that the CIT(A) in his order dated 28th March, 2018 has reproduced the entire remand report of the Assessing Officer. In the report, Officer indicates that notices sent to some of the companies came back un-served, yet thereafter, the companies appeared before him through a representative and made submissions in support of their investments. Further, the impugned order records that change of address was given to the Assessing Officer and yet it appears that notice was served on an incorrect address. Further, Tribunal also records that in fact, one of the Director of the Company which has subscribed the shares, had given also an affidavit, stating that, the Company has paid Rs. 30 lakhs to 30,000 equity shares of Rs. 10/- each at a premium of Rs. 90/- to the Assessee Company. Thus, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal have both come to a finding of fact that amounts received for share subscription is not hit by Section 68 of the Act as the identity, capacity of the shareholder is proved. Besides, the genuineness of the transactions also stands established. In the above circumstances, the concurrent finding of facts by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal do not call for any inference. Particularly in the absence of the Revenue’s showing it to be perverse. Thus, the question as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained.