Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE & SHRI SONJOY SARMA, HON’BLE
O R D E R
PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
The present appeal is directed at the instance of the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter the “ld. CIT(A)”) dt. 28/03/2023, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for the Assessment Year 2012-13, on the following grounds:- “
1. For that the assessment order passed by Ld. AO and confirmed by Ld. CIT (A) is arbitrary, illegal and bad in law.
2. For that the Assessment order being served after 31.03.2015 is barred by limitation For that the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO in assessing the share capital and premium of 1,51,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit merely for the reason of non- appearance of the share applicants whereas otherwise there were sufficient evidences on records in support of the identity, capacity of the share applicants and genuineness of the transactions and all the share Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Angel Infrabuild Private Limited applicants duly complied with Notice issued u/s 133(6) of the IT Act, 1961.
3. For that even otherwise, the share applicants are income tax assessee and assessment of the all the share applicants companies for the Assessment Year 2012-213 are already been completed u/s 143(3) of the act.
4. For that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in Confirming the addition of share capital and premium as unexplained cash credit merely based upon his own surmises and conjectures and contrary to the evidences on record.
5. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is not maintainable.
6. For that the order of the AO be modified and the assessee be given relief prayed for.
7. For that the appellant craves leave to add, alter or withdraw any ground/s of appeal on or before hearing of the appeal.”
2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is private limited company. Income of Rs.18,587/- declared in the e-return filed for Assessment Year 2012-13 on 20/09/2012. Case selected for scrutiny followed by serving of notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, ld. Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has raised fresh share capital of Rs.16,00,000/- and also received share premium of Rs.1,35,00,000/- on the said share capital. Notice under section 133(6) of the Act was sent to the share allottees, to which replies were received along with Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Angel Infrabuild Private Limited relevant documents including financial statements, bank statement, confirmations etc.. Further, the ld. Assessing Officer issued summons u/s 131 of the Act to the directors of the assessee company asking to produce the directors of the shareholding companies to which there was no compliance. For this very reason the ld. Assessing Officer was of the view that the assessee has failed to explain the alleged sum of Rs.1,51,00,000/- along with other minor additions/disallowances at Rs.1,62,905/-. Income assessed at Rs.1,52,81,492/-. Aggrieved the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) filing relevant details as were placed before the ld. Assessing Officer but failed to succeed on the issue of addition u/s 68 of the Act.
Aggrieved the assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal.
The ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the paper book containing 236 pages contended that in this case, the assessee had filed all evidences to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the share subscribers and genuineness of the transactions including the addresses, PAN details, board resolution and forms filed with the