DELUSE ABASAN (P) LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-14(1), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7/KOL/2021Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 August 2023AY 2012-136 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee failed to provide satisfactory evidence to establish the genuineness of the transactions and the creditworthiness of the shareholders.

What were the facts?

The assessee company received share capital and premium amounting to Rs. 7,21,00,000. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated this as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 as the assessee failed to establish the identity, creditworthiness of shareholders, and genuineness of the transactions.

What were the issues?

Whether the share capital and premium received by the assessee constitute unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH KOLKATA

Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

For Respondent: Shri Subhendu Datta, CIT, DR
Hearing: 11.07.2023Pronounced: 28.08.2023

Present for: Appellant by : N o n e Respondent by : Shri Subhendu Datta, CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 11.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 28.08.2023 O R D E R

PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-5, Kolkata vide Appeal No. 186/CIT(A)-5/Wd-14(1)/15-16/Kol dated 21.08.2019 passed against the assessment order by ITO, Ward- 14(1), Kolkata u/s.143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 31.03.2015 for AY 2012-13.

2.

Ground of appeal raised by the assessee is reproduced as under:

“1. That the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.7,21,00,000/- being the share applicants money along with the premium received by the assessee, wrongly holding the same to be the unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the I. T. Act.” 2. The impugned assessment order is dated 31.03.2015, passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. From the said order, we note that assessee filed its return of income on 30.09.2012, reporting total income of Rs.60,321/-. Case was selected for scrutiny assessment for the reason “large share premium received”. Ld. AO noted that assessee has introduced share capital including share premium of Rs.7,21,00,000/- and called for details and explanation. Ld. AO also issued notice u/s. 131 on the assessee for personal attendance of the Director of the assessee as well as the investors to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the investors and genuineness of the transactions, undertaken by them. Since compliance was not made to the satisfaction of Ld. AO, addition was made in this respect and assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) agitating that the Ld. AO was not justified in making the addition of Rs.7,21,00,000/-, being the share capital along with the premium received by the assessee, wrongly holding the same to be the unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. 2.1. After careful consideration of the submission of the assessee, the relevant assessment records, various judicial decisions including that of the Apex Court and jurisdictional High Court and ITAT, Ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee could not establish the genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of the shareholders. So, he confirmed the addition of Rs.7.,21,00,000/-. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

3.

Before us none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Subhendu Datta, Ld. CIT, DR appeared on behalf of the revenue. Now before us, there has not been any representation by the assessee or its authorised representative. From the perusal of order sheet, it is noted that the erstwhile counsel of the assessee Shri Siddartha Agarwal, Advocate had withdrawn his Power of Attorney and pleaded that no instruction has been received on behalf of the assessee. To this effect, it was directed to issue fresh notice, fixing the date of hearing for 10.04.2023. The erstwhile counsel had supplied the address of the assessee for the purpose of issuing notices for hearing. The subsequent notices fixing the date of hearing were issued on the given address. The same were informed by phone also as per the noting of the Bench Clerk in the order sheet. However, none has come up before us to represent the matter even though the appeal has been filed by the assessee. It is important to note that the assessee is a legal entity which must be having all the para-pharnelia to meet the regulatory and statutory compliance requirement, more so, when assessee itself is pursuing the litigation before various authorities. In the present case before us, conduct of the assessee as observed above persuades us to uphold the addition made by the Ld. AO. Ld. CIT(A) after going through the material placed on record had given his finding to hold that assessee could not establish the genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of the shareholders and thus sustained the addition made by the Ld. AO.

3.1. The observations and finding arrived at by the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under:

4.

Finding of Ld. CIT(A) as noted above have not been controverted by the assessee by making any submission and representing its case before us by placing relevant material on record. Considering the above, the solitary ground taken by the assessee, challenging the addition of Rs.7.21 Cr. on account of share capital along with share premium is dismissed.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →