Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SRI SANJAY GARG & DR. MANISH BORAD
order
: January 2nd, 2023 ORDER
Per Manish Borad, Accountant Member:
This appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year (in short “AY”) 2012-13 is directed against the order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the “Act”) by ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-10, Kolkata [in I.T.A. No.: 133/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Royalpet Traders Pvt. Ltd. short ld. “CIT(A)”] dated 02.12.2019 arising out of the assessment order framed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 10.03.2015.
The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds: “
1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the action of the Ld. CIT(A) to uphold the addition of Rs.9,91,00,000/- on account of share capital u/s 68 of the Act, made by the AO is contrary to the material evidences on record and the addition made is arbitrary, excessive and bad in law.
2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the action of the Ld. CIT(A) to uphold the disallowance of Rs.9,91,00,000/- on account of share capital by treating it as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act, made by the AO is without considering the evidences and submissions filed and the addition made is in violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore the addition made is arbitrary, excessive and bad in law.
3. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) upholding the additions made by the Assessing Officer is illegal, arbitrary and bad in law.
4. That the above grounds of appeal shall be argued in detail at the time of hearing and the appellant craves leave to submit, add, alter, modify, amend any grounds of appeal or submit any additional grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing.”
3. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the assessee did not get fair opportunity to plead its case before ld. CIT(A) nor could file various evidences explaining the source of share capital and share premium totalling to Rs. 9.91 Cr. Prayer was made to restore the issue raised on merit to ld. CIT(A) for afresh adjudication considering the details filed during the course of hearing before this Tribunal.
4. On the other hand, ld. D/R though supported the order of ld. CIT(A) stating it to be a well-reasoned order but could not