Taxc v. Income-Tax Officer Ward-2(1) Bhilai, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR TAXC No. 131 of 2023 M/s Bajrang Agrotech (I) Pvt. Ltd. Through Director Anil Bansal, S/oSatya Prakash Bansal, Aged About 46 Years, Village Samoda, Dhamdha Road, P.O., P.S. And Thahsil- Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh Satya Prakash Bansal, Aged About 46 Years, Village Samoda, Dhamdha Road, P.O., P.S. And Thahsil- Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---- Appellant Versus Income-Tax Officer Ward-2(1) Bhilai, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Appellant:Shri S. Rajeswara Rao, Advocate For Respondent : Shri Amit Choudhary, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri & Hon’ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar TiwariOrder on Board Per Goutam Bhaduri, J. 03/10/2023 Heard. 1.The question of law is proposed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur dated 17/02/2023 wherein the Tribunal has Appellate Tribunal, Raipur dated 17/02/2023 wherein the Tribunal has passed the following order : 8. We have heard the rival submissions, have gone through the paper book of the assessee and additional evidence with affidavit submitted under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. Admittedly, the additional evidence submitted by the assessee along with affidavit running into 82 pages are relevant to be looked into so as to reach to a logical conclusion on the issue, therefore the additional evidences need a close verification, the same has been fairly admitted by both the parties. We therefore of the view that to examine the additional evidences it is necessary in accordance with the principle of natural justice to restore this issue back to the files of Id. AO to re-adjudicate the issue and we do so. Needless to say, the assessee shall be provided with reasonable opportunity of being heard and to explain the facts to substantiate its contentions. 2.Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant herein is a Company and a share application money by the different investors for the Assessment Year 2012-13 was with the company. In respect of it the Assessment Officer made a detailed enquiry wherein company was directed to furnish details of share application money which includes the particulars of investors i.e. name, complete address and PAN number. He would further submit that pursuant to such enquiry, the Company has furnished the details of the share application money with the company with name and complete address and the PAN number of the different individuals, who invested the same. He would further submit that along with that bank account were also furnished, therefore, once the details have been submitted, the share application money cannot be treated as unexplained cash to be an income of the company and it is for the Income Tax Department to make an enquiry about these investors. He would further submit that details furnished by company were not taken care off and the assessment order was passed wherein the share application money was treated to be unexplained money in hand of company. Against that order when the appeal was filed before the CIT, the enquiry with respect to share application money, report of the A.O. was called, which was forwarded to the Assessing Officer. The A.O. though submitted the report with respect to the share application money but no enquiry was conducted. money, report of the A.O. was called, which was forwarded to the Assessing Officer. The A.O. though submitted the report with respect to the share application money but no enquiry was conducted. 3.Subsequent to that this was challenged before the appellate Tribunal, Income Tax, wherein the Appellate Tribunal, Income Tax has passed the order. The learned counsel would submit that the said details cannot be enquired from company time and again as the details of share application money was already furnished and the appellate tribunal being the fact finding authority, it cannot relegate back for enquiry. He placed his reliance in the matter of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Venkateshwar ISPAT P. Ltd {(2009) 319 ITR 393 (Chhattisgarh)} and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Lovely Exports Private Limited {(2010) 14 SCC 761}.Income Tax, wherein the Appellate Tribunal, Income Tax has passed the order. The learned counsel would submit that the said details cannot be enquired from company time and again as the details of share application money was already furnished and the appellate tribunal being the fact finding authority, it cannot relegate back for enquiry. He placed his reliance in the matter of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Venkateshwar ISPAT P. Ltd {(2009) 319 ITR 393 (Chhattisgarh)} and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Lovely Exports Private Limited {(2010) 14 SCC 761}. 4.Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that in respect to find out whether the share money is an undisclosed income under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, which is received by the assessee company is been relegated back for enquiry and no prejudice would be caused to the appellant. He would further submit that before the appellate authority the admission was also made to expose the appellant to the enquiry.respect to find out whether the share money is an undisclosed income under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, which is received by the assessee company is been relegated back for enquiry and no prejudice would be caused to the appellant. He would further submit that before the appellate authority the admission was also made to expose the appellant to the enquiry. 5.We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the proposed questions.questions. 6. It is a settled proposition that in case of share money can be regarded as undisclosed income under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, the department would be free to proceed to reopen their independent assessment if any bogus share holders exist and it cannot be assessed regarded as undisclosed income of assessee company. In the facts of this case, the very genesis of the fact that whether the share application money was invested in the assessee company by the share holders can be regarded as undisclosed income of the assessee which has to be decided in the touchstone of the credit worthiness and any proximity with the company. Consequently, the same can be relegated back to the Assessing Officer for enquiry which would not otherwise prejudice to the appellant, if truth subsists. Therefore, in the circumstances of the case, we do not find any question of law falls for consideration in this appeal. 7.Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- Goutam Bhaduri Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judge JudgeAshu