- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Dwarkadhish Financial Services
Factual and Procedural Background
The appeal challenges an order passed by the Tribunal dated 26th February 2002 concerning the assessment year 1997-98. The appellant contests the Tribunal's decision regarding the genuineness of share application money received by the company from seven shareholder companies. The appellant initially faced delay in refiling the appeal, which was condoned by the court. The procedural history includes disposal of a connected miscellaneous application and the hearing of the appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Assessing Officer (AO) had jurisdiction and power to investigate the identity of the shareholders who made the share application money transactions.
- Whether the onus was on the assessed to establish the genuineness of the share application money transactions.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The AO lacked jurisdiction and power to investigate the source or identity of the shareholders involved in the share application money transactions.
- The burden of proof was on the assessed to demonstrate that the transactions involving share application money were genuine.
Respondent's Arguments
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondent's legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Judgments of this Court and the Supreme Court (unspecified) | Authority of AO to investigate the identity of shareholders | The court held that the identity of shareholders can be investigated by the AO, but this is primarily a factual determination rather than a legal question. |
| Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Sofia Finance (supra) | Requirement of investigation when identity of share applicants is established | The court referred to this precedent to support the proposition that no further investigation is needed if the identity of share applicants is clearly established. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court recognized that the AO has the jurisdiction to investigate the identity of shareholders, but emphasized that this is a factual inquiry. The assessed produced comprehensive evidence including affidavits, share application forms, confirmations from the applicant companies, board resolutions, and bank details to establish the genuineness of the share application money. The Tribunal found that the seven share applicants were validly incorporated companies and their identities were properly established through documentary formalities and affidavits from directors. Despite a report from the income-tax Inspector about the non-availability of the share applicants at the given address, the court observed that the AO could have conducted further inquiries through the bank but did not do so. The court noted that the shareholders were themselves income-tax payers, making it contradictory to presume their non-existence. Consequently, the court concluded that the addition made by the CIT(A) regarding the share application money was unjustified and deleted the addition. The court also held that no substantial question of law arose from the facts presented.
Holding and Implications
The appeal is dismissed.
The court's ruling deletes the addition made by the CIT(A) concerning the share application money, affirming that the transactions were genuine. There are no broader legal precedents established by this decision. The direct effect is that the appellant's challenge to the Tribunal's order fails and the addition is deleted.
1. CM 3834 of 2005 For the reasons stated in the application which are supported by an affidavit, we condone the delay in refiling the appeal.
2. CM is disposed of. ITA 225 of 2005
3. The challenge in this appeal under section 260a of the it act (hereinafter referred to as act) is to the order passed by the Tribunal, dt. 26th Feb., 2002, in relation to asst. yr. 1997-98, inter alia, on the following grounds :
(a) That the AO had no jurisdiction and power to look into and investigate the source. In other words, investigate the identity of the shareholders.
(b) The onus was on the assessed to establish that the transaction of the share application money was a genuine transaction.
4. As far as first proposition of law is concerned, the judgments of this Court as well as the Supreme Court are clear and there cannot be a dispute that the identity of shareholder can be looked into by the AO. However, this aspect of the matter would primarily be a finding of fact and not a question of law.
5. The assessed had produced all relevant evidence to establish that the share application money received by the company was as a result of the genuine transactions. It has been noticed even in the impugned order that evidence was produced by the assessed including affidavits, copies of the share application forms, copies of the confirmation from the applicant-company, copies of the board of directors resolution approving such transactions as well as cheque number, branch and address of the bank through which the investment was made. Based upon this, the Tribunal recorded its finding as under :
"From various documents mentioned above, it is clear that all the 7 share applicants were companies incorporated under the Companies Act and incorporation of a company under the Companies Act requires certain documentary formalities. These formalities were gone through which warranted the incorporation of above share subscribers companies by the Registrar of Companies. Thus, there should be no dispute about their identities. The affidavits from the directors of all the share applicant companies had also been filed. The share applicant companies are being assessed to tax. In the affidavits, we also find that the directors have taken the delivery of shares allotted to each share applicant. This meets the query of the AO regarding the allotment of share. On the basis of above evidences, if the identity of each share applicant was established then perhaps there was no need for making further investigation as has been held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sofia Finance (supra). But looking to the facts that the income-tax Inspector in his report to AO has reported the non-availability of the above share applicants oh the given address, we have verified the creditworthiness of the shareholders as well as genuineness of the transaction. In the affidavits, the cheque numbers, the addresses of the bank, the account number in the bank has also been mentioned. In case the AO had any doubt about the creditworthiness/identity of such share applicant, he was free to make inquiries through the bank. This was not done. Merely because the Inspector reported that the share applicants were not found on the given address was not enough for holding that shareholders neither existed nor their creditworthiness was established. The overwhelming evidence mentioned above clearly proved not only the identity of the share applicants but their creditworthiness as well as genuineness of the transaction. We, therefore, hold that the addition in respect of share application money received from the above 7 companies was a genuine share application money and the addition sustained by the CIT(A) in this respect is not justified and the same is deleted."
6. We may also notice that the AO himself has noticed in the order that the applicant-shareholders were income-tax payers. In such circumstances, it cannot be presumed that the shareholder who is assessed to tax is not in existence. This would tantamount to contradiction in the stand of the Department itself.
7. In view of the above circumstances, no questions of law much less the substantial question of law arise in the present case. Dismissed.
Alert