SHARE CAPITAL
&
UNSECURED LOANS
Ajat Wadhwa, FCA
1
THE RELEVANT PROVISION








SECTION 68 OF THE ACT
Deeming provision-substantive –creates a
liability/charge
Applicability when
Credit of amount in books maintained by ‘A’
Sum to be credited in previous year
‘A’ offers no explanation about nature and
source thereof
‘A’ offers explanation – not satisfactory in
opinion of AO.
The sum so credited may be charged…
Ajat Wadhwa, FCA
2

Found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous
year


Held that amount not credited in books of accounts cannot be brought to tax u/s 68.
Baladin Ram vs. CIT (71 ITR 427) (SC)


Where amounts not credited in books of accounts?
Meaning of books of accounts-sec.2[12A]
refer to books of original entry, wherein accounts are updated/entries made in
routine basis regularly. Also refer CBI v. V. C. Shukla [1998] 3 SCC 410





Credits of earlier years, not surfacing in current year,are outside the scope of section
68.
Credits on first day of the previous year, can well be examined u/s68.
Credits on first day of new business of firm, can only be examined in the hands of the
partners.
Credits in pass book provided by bank.Passbook is not books of account.CITvs.
BhaichandH Gandhi (141 ITR 67)(Bom)-adverse view of ITAT Delhi in 314 ITR [AT]001
Maintenance of books of account is a condition precedent for application of
section 68-86 ITD 626 (Del.Trib) DCIT v/sFinlayCorporation
Ajat Wadhwa, FCA
3
SHARE CAPITAL
If share application through banking channel –
Only identity need to be established
- Barkha Synthetics 286 ITR 377 (Raj)
- Stellar Investment 251 ITR 263 (SC)
- Divine Leasing 207 CTR 38 (Del)
- Glocom Impex 205 CTR 511 (Del)
- Makhni & Tyagi (P) Ltd – 136 Taxman 641(Del)
& 267 ITR 433, Avtantika Investment – 262
ITR
493(Del), Achal Investment – 268 ITR
335(Del),
Ajat Wadhwa, FCA
4

CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. 216 CTR 195 (SC) –
SLP Dismissed
From Delhi High Court in case of Divine Leasing & Lovely
Exports 299 ITR 268. Dismissal of SLP through a
speaking order.
Even if the shareholders are bogus, the addition if any
can be made in their hands only. Bogus according to the
Oxford dictionary means faked, fraudulent, sham,
deceptive, misleading, forged, make believe, fictitious,
dummy, phoney, pretend, etc.
In K. Mahim UDMA, 242 ITR 133 Ker- The essence of
benami is the intention of the parties, and often, such
intention is shrouded in a secret veil which cannot be
easily pieced through. But such difficulties do not relieve
the person asserting the transaction to be benami of the
5
Ajat Wadhwa, FCA
serious onus that rests on
him, nor justify the
acceptance of mere conjectures and surmises as a
CASE LAWS
Venkateshwar Ispat P.Ltd, (2009)319 ITR 393 (Chhattisgarh)
Letters issued to the shareholders returned unserved- address is not
complete or for other similar reason. Additional evidence in the form
of confirmations etc filed by the A was accepted by the CIT (A).
Bhav Shakti Steel Mines (P) Ltd, 18 DTR 194 (Del)
Cash deposits in the bank accounts of the shareholders out of which
cheques were issued to the appellant company. The tribunal setaside the order of the CIT(A) with the direction that the
share applicant should be examined. The Hon’ble High Court
allowed the appellant's appeal by stating that the identity of each of
the shareholders stood established, each of them is an income tax
assessee and had disclosed the share application money in their
accounts
Gangour Investment Ltd, [2009] 18 DTR 242 (Del)
the allegation that it was the appellant's own money which was
brought back as share capital was found to be baseless,
unsubstantiated and relying upon the judgement of the Hon’ble
Wadhwa, FCA
Supreme Court in the caseAjat of
lovely exports, the appeal of the6
department was dismissed.
CIT v. Samir BIO-Tech (P) Ltd, 17 DTR 224 ( Del ) there was no
response of the shareholders to the summons issued by the Department.
No adverse inference only because the subscribers did not initially
respond to the summons. The subsequent confirmation letters filed are
sufficient and the identity of the subscribers stands establish coupled with
the fact that they have shown the said amounts in their audited balance
sheet filed before the IT authorities.
 GP International Ltd. (2009) 186 Taxman 229 (P&H)
Merely because there was no response to notices under section 136(6) no
conclusion that the share capital is in genuine can be drawn.
Value Capital Services Private limited 307 ITR 334- additional
burden on the revenue whereby it must show that even if the applicant
does not have the means to make the investment, the investment made by
the applicant actually emanated from the coffers of the ‘A’.
Victor Electrodes 329 ITR 271 Delhi- no need for production.
Hindustan Inks and Resins 60 DTR 18 Gujarat

Ajat Wadhwa, FCA
7


No need for fresh opportunity.
CIT v. Indocon Finance & Investment Ltd,1 DTR 25 (Del)
Merely on the basis of a statement and without allowing
an opportunity to cross examine the addition cannot be
sustained. The plea of the Revenue that the matter
should be remanded back to the file of the assessing
officer to look into the issue afresh was not allowed on
the ground that this would not serve any purpose and
would not only delay further proceedings but would also
cause further harassment to the assessee. It was further
stated that the revenue had an opportunity to justify its
stand but it failed to avail of that occasion. There is
therefore no reason why it should be given a second
chance.
This proposition has also been held by the Hon’ble
Ajat Wadhwa, FCA
Chandigarh Tribunal in the
case of Neena Syal 70 ITD 8
62.
ALLEGATIONS OF BOGUS MONEYREOPENING OF ASSESSMENT





Nova Promoters Finlease
Statement regarding bogus companies and bank accounts.
Affidavit filed by A confirming share capital. Gunwati Bai 146 ITR 140 Del –
No material on record to doubt affidavit and no cross examination takenaffidavt to be true.
Retraction after 3 years.
Modus operandi graphic and names A.
Sarthak Securities 329 ITR 110 Del-writ for questioning 148 notice-received
bogus accommodation entries - details, beneficiary name, beneficiary bank,
beneficiary branch, value of entry, date of entry, name of account holder
giving entry, back from which entry given.-Accommodation entries received
as unsecured loan.
 Held. AO aware of four companies – no mention that companies fictitious –
no independent application of mind – existence not disputed – banking
channels. Watered down by AGR Investments 50 DTR 97 Del.

Ajat Wadhwa, FCA
9
Proviso to Sec 68 w.e.f. 1-4-13
Applicable to companies in which public not
interested.
 In respect of share application, share premium,
share capital or any such amount received by
the company.
 Explanation offered by company deemed to be
not satisfactory unless:
a. The shareholder offers explanation regarding
nature and source of the sum.
b. Such explanation found to be satisfactory.

Ajat Wadhwa, FCA
10
Unsecured loans







Judge made law – Assessee to establish identity of
giver, genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of
giver.
Identity-PAN, ROI, Passport etc
Genuineness-bank statement, confirmation, relationship
etc.
Creditworthiness- assets list, robust return of income,
large credits in the bank.
ONUS OF ‘A’ discharged once he files confirmation with
PAN ward, bank particulars and income source of
creditor.
The rigors of section 68 are different in cases of gift,
unsecured loans and share capital.
Gift: Most strict-relationship, rigorous test of
creditworthiness. MohanAjatakala
11
Wadhwa, FCA291 ITR 278 SC.






1. Assessee ‘offers no explanation’ means no proper,
reasonable and acceptable explanation
2. Sumiti Dayal 214 ITR 801 (SC) – Receipt of money
is prima facie evidence against “A”.
3. Daulat Ram Rawatmull 87 ITR 349 SC
OD taken by assessee firm-security FD of partners sondeposits adjusted OD.
Onus of apparent was not real on who alleges-to be
direct nexus between conclusion of fact and primary fact
on which conclusion based.
Extraneous and irrelevant consideration-same bank-no
consideration-owner not properly explained source of
deposit doesn’t mean it belonged to assessee.
Ajat Wadhwa, FCA
12
Orissa Corporation 159 ITR 78 SC.
Kalyan Memorial 125 ITD 525 Agra TM-’A’ filed
confirmation PAN etc – summons by AO to
creditors returned and AO asked ‘A’ to
substantiate-never asked ‘a’ to produce creditorAO could have verified from PAN or bank
account-no addition.
 Golden Remedies 18 SOT 260 Del Rohini Builders 76 TTJ 521 Ahd-TDS on interest
paid-PAN given-merely because summons
returned-no addition can be made.


Ajat Wadhwa, FCA
13
EXAMINATION OF THE SOURCE OF
SOURCE




BASIC JUDGEMENT- TOLA RAM DAGA 59 ITR 632.
if third party confirms her deposit then ‘A’ can’t be compelled to
establish the source of her deposit. Section 34 of the Evidence Act says
that entries in books of account to be true.
Even if the deposit is from wife - ‘A’ not presumed to have private
knowledge of the source unless Deptt establishes that he had
knowledge.
Also Orient Trading Co 49 ITR 723 Bom, S Hastimal 49 ITR 273 MAD,
Nabadwip Chandra Roy 44 ITR 591 ASSAM, S N Ganguly 24 ITR 16
PAT.
Judgement in KALE KHAN HANIF distinguished as deposits were of ‘A’
not third party.
ARAVALI TRADING 220 CTR 622 RAJ- Two out of four creditors
appeared but all confirmed having given loans-also filed evidence of
source- source of creditors found weak and unacceptable-held no
nexus between money given by creditors and assessee found-addn if
any to be in hands of creditors.
Ajat Wadhwa, FCA
14
CONTINUED
Late Mangilal Agarwal 300 ITR 372 RAJ.- No
statutory presumption of ownership against ‘A’-if he
disclaims ownership, burden on Department-primary
gold found-owners not able to furnish
evidence/discrepancy in explanation.
Nemi Chand Kothari – 264 ITR 254(Gau) Cr didn’t
show Cr worthiness of sub-Cr- Addn not justified in
hands of ‘A’ – Sarogi Credit Corporation 103 ITR 344 Pat- Once
identity established and pledged on oath- burden on
Department to show that money in fact belongs to the
‘A’.-rejection of source of creditor by itself won’t lead to
addition.
Ajat Wadhwa, FCA
15
Request for Summons





AO duty bound to issue summons on request &
enforce attendance 54 ITD 229 (Del),
Munna Lal Murli Dhar 79 ITR 540 (All), inadequate
opportunity and not acceding to request to summonasstt vitiated.
Others - 117 ITR 186 (All) CIT v. Randhenu Vyapar
Co. 263 ITR 692 (Cal).
Assessee tried best – took dasti summons – could not
enforce attendance no adverse inference – summons
to be directly issued by AO – must enforce attendance
– Nathuram Prem Chand v. CIT 49 ITR 561 (All).
EMC Works Pvt ltd 49 ITR 640 (All)-Duty of AO to
requisition books from Police if the “A’ makes a
request-otherwise asstt process vitiated.
Ajat Wadhwa, FCA
16
SUMMONS CONTINUED AND OLD
LOANS





Hanuman Agarwal 151 ITR 150 Pat.
Name ,address, PAN and confirmatory letter-onus shifts
to Dept-unless 131 issued by AO-assessee is to succeedsource of income is in exclusive domain/dark trusses of
the minds.
Orissa Corporation 159 ITR 78 SC.
Names addresses and PAN given-couldn’t produce and
requested for summons-deptt didn’t pursue creditors and
only issued summons.
–After 20 yrs from the event, lenders can’t be excepted
to prove genuineness. Champaklal Dhamanwala 34 ITD
209(Ahd), R.N. Goel 49 TTJ 251(Del),
Jindal Udyog – 83 ITD 248(Chd), May charge to tax-P.K.
Noorjehan 237 ITR 570(SC)-after 10 years can’t be said
that irregularity is of “a’Ajatdoing.
17
Wadhwa, FCA
Evidence to be confronted-ask for
cross examination





Addn on basis of report of Institute on percentage of
silver-chewing tobacco
Request to AO for cross examination not acceded toprinciples of natural justice flouted – Dharam Pal 295
ITR 105 Del
Rajesh Kumar 218 CTR 691 Del, 177 ITR 108 (Del)
Pradeep Kumar Gupta 303 ITR 95, Delhi- Failure to
produce the third-party who was purportedly the entry
provider for cross-examination despite request of the
assessee was fatal to the assessment itself.
Evidence to be confronted 239 ITR 859 (P&H),
Ponkunnam 102 ITR 366 (Ker) ACIT v. Surya Kant Dalmi
99 TTJ 27 – SB (Cal), Nahta 301 ITR 134 (MP), 12 DTR
293 Mad, Jindal Vegetable 315 ITR 265 Del, Goverdhan
India 177 TAXMAN 29 Del.
18
Ajat Wadhwa, FCA
Misc




No addition merely on third party statement;
CIT v. Girish Chaudhary 296ITR 619 (Del) Rajesh Jain
100 TTJ 929 (Del) Bansal Strips (P) Ltd.100 TTJ 665
Prarthana Construction 70 TTJ 122 (Ahd) Third Party
Statement 100 TTJ 665 (Del) 303 ITR 95 del, 20 DTR
317 Del, 288 ITR 345 Del, 304 ITR 393 Del, 25 DTR 97
Del.
Addition of cash sales u/s 68 for non furnishing of
buyers names. R B Jessavam Fatehchand v CIT 75 ITR
33 ( Bom)
Realisation of Sundry Debtors – Not cash credit – 55
ITD 159 (Del)
Ajat Wadhwa, FCA
19