DRUMSTICK NIRMAN (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-1(4), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1642/KOL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 May 2023AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, in the absence of any representation or evidence from the assessee to substantiate the share transactions, found no reason to interfere with the orders of the lower authorities. The addition made by the AO was upheld.

What were the facts?

The assessee company raised share capital of Rs. 66 lakh, including premium. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, finding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of share subscribers unsatisfactory. The CIT(A) upheld this addition.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the AO under Section 68 for share capital raised, including premium, was justified due to lack of satisfactory explanation regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the subscribers.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH KOLKATA

Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

For Respondent: Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Hearing: 17.05.2023Pronounced: 24.05.2023

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)- 10, Kolkata vide Appeal No. 229/CIT(A)-10/Wd-1(4)/14-15/2018-19/Kol dated 22.04.2019 against the assessment order of ITO, Ward-1(4), Kolkata u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 21.12.2016 for AY 2014-15.

2.

Ground raised by the assessee is reproduced as under:

“I. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs.66,00,000/- being fresh raising of share capital including share premium by wrongly invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Act.”

Drumstick Nirman Pvt. Ltd., AY: 2014-15. 3. In the present case none represented the assessee before us. Department was represented by Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR.

4.

On the earlier occasion when the matter was listed for hearing on 06.02.2023, none appeared on behalf of the assessee and the matter was adjourned, directing the registry to issue notice by RPAD as well as inform the assessee through e-mail and telephone. From the order sheet entry of 21.02.2023, we note that the counsel engaged in the present case had withdrawn his Power of Attorney and the matter was adjourned with a direction to issue a fresh notice through RPAD as well as sending it by e-mail and informing over phone. We observe that though the notices have been served, yet no one has come up to represent the matter before us. None has represented the assessee.

4.1. The issue involved in the present case is in respect of addition made towards raising of share capital including share premium u/s. 68 of the Act. From the perusal of the impugned orders of the authorities below, we are inclined to take up the matter with the able assistance of the Ld. Sr. DR, ex parte qua the assessee.

5.

Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed its return on 23.03.2015 reporting total income of Rs.4,143/-. Case was selected for scrutiny through CASS for which statutory notices were issued and served on the assessee. In the course of assessment proceedings, Shri A. B. Singh, Ld. AR of the assessee appeared before the Ld. AO. In the course of assessment proceedings, ld. AO noted that assessee has raised share capital including share premium of Rs. 66 lakh. Assessee had issued 52,800 shares of Rs. 10/- each at a premium of Rs.150/- per share. After considering the submissions made by the assessee, Ld. AO found that the identity and creditworthiness of the share subscribers and the genuineness of the transactions were not satisfactorily explained and thus, made the addition to the total income u/s. 68 of the Act.

Drumstick Nirman Pvt. Ltd., AY: 2014-15. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who after considering the facts of the case, findings given by the ld. AO and several judicial precedents, dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

6.

Before us nothing has been placed on record in support of the claim of the assessee by filing this appeal to substantiate and demonstrate the identity and creditworthiness of the share subscribers and the genuineness of the transactions in respect of share capital raised by the assessee including share premium amounting to Rs. 66 lakh. After considering the observations and findings given by the authorities below, we do not find any reason to interfere in the same and accordingly, uphold the addition so made.

7.

In the result, appeal of the assessee 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 →