SATHIYAM TELEVISION LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CORP WARD-20(5), CHENNAI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including bank statements and proof of income of the investors, to explain the share capital received. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.
What were the facts?
The assessee company received share capital of Rs. 8 Lakhs from four investors. The Assessing Officer treated this amount as unexplained credit and made an addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) upheld the addition.
What were the issues?
Whether the share capital received by the assessee company from certain investors was unexplained credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C/SMC’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGHAND
आदेश / O R D E R This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, [CIT(A)] in Appeal No.CIT(A), Chennai- 14/10076/2017-18. The Assessment was framed by Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward-20(5), Chennai for the relevant A.Y. 2015-16 vide order dated 31.10.2017 u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).
The only issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the order of CIT(A) sustaining the addition made by A.O as unexplained credit u/s. 68 of the Act amounting to Rs. 8 Lakhs. For this, the assessee has raised grounds which are argumentative in nature and hence, need not to be reproduced.
I have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. I noticed that the A.O during the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings noticed that the assessee being a public limited company increased its share capital during the year to the extent of Rs. 17 Lakhs in the paid up share capital. The A.O after considering the explanation of the assessee made addition of share capital received from Shri P. Amalraj amounting to Rs. 1 Lakh, Ms. V.Anjala amounting to Rs. 5 Lakhs, Shri Sudheer amounting to Rs.1 Lakh and Shri Melvin Robert amounting to Rs. 1 Lakh.
According to A.O, the above share capital received of Rs. 8 Lakhs from four investors is unexplained and accordingly, added u/s. 68 of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A).
The CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the AO, despite various submissions were filed before him.
I have gone through the case records and submissions made by both the sides. I noted that Shri P. Amalraj invested a sum of Rs. 1 Lakh and amount received by the assessee-company vide bearing Cheque No.642714 for amount of Rs. 1 Lakh and this has debited from the bank account of Shri P. Amalraj and he has submitted copy of acknowledgement for filing of return of income along with the details of bank account. Even, the narration of the bank statement of the assessee-company, the payment is received by the assessee- company is clearly debited. Hence, I find no reason to treat this as bogus or unexplained cash credit.
Coming to the share application money received from Ms. V.
Anjala, who is the owner of proprietary concern M/s. VSP Enterprises and she has invested a sum of Rs. 5 Lakhs vide account payee Cheque No.14134828809 dated 14.05.2014 and the same is reflected in the bank statement of the assessee and the investor. The assessee filed bank statement, computation of income and the acknowledgment for filing of tax returns by the investor. From the bank statements of the assessee-company, it is reflected that the transaction is clearly debited and hence, there is no question of not accepting investors’ creditworthiness. Hence, I treat this as explained and delete the addition.
Coming to the next investment in the name of Shri Sudheer, who invested a sum of Rs. 25,000/- on 02.01.2014 and Rs. 75,000/- on 09.06.2014 in the assessee-company and these transactions were duly reflected in the assessee’s bank statement and he has filed acknowledgment of filing of return of income and he has source of income. The assessee has also provided copy of bank account, the assessee-company reflecting this transaction in both the years. Hence, I find that the source is explained and hence, this addition is to be deleted. I delete the addition accordingly.
Coming to Mr. Melvin Robert, the assessee filed bank statement, acknowledgment of return of income of the investor and also provided bank account of the assessee-company reflected the transaction. The investor is assessed to tax is a substantial income declared in the return of income and hence, this investment of share application is also deleted.
As regards to the creditworthiness of all the creditors is proved, I delete the addition made by A.O on account of unexplained cash credit of Rs. 8 Lakhs. Hence, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 07th of March, 2023.
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Sahoo Supply Agency,Balasore vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs,New DelhiOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S Jyoti Consultants, Agrahat vs. Pr. Commissioner GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, BhubaneswarOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S. Sahoo Supply Agency vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And CustomsOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- Gopal Aromatic PVT. LTD., Cuttack vs. Union Of INDIAOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S. Nourangi Paints vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026