LAN FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7(1)(1), AAYKAR BHAWAN MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5823/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2026AY 2018-20194 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 noted that the assessee's counsel pointed out that the present appeal was inadvertently filed for the second time, as another appeal for the same assessment year and on the same issue (ITA No. 6285/Mum/2025) had already been adjudicated by a Coordinate Bench on 08.04.2026, allowing the assessee's appeal. The assessee's counsel demonstrated the exactness of the issue raised and dealt with by the Coordinate Bench. In light of this, the assessee's counsel submitted to withdraw the present appeal as infructuous, to which the Revenue raised no objection. The Tribunal perused the records and, considering the circumstances, dismissed the present appeal of the assessee as withdrawn. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. No specific issue was left undecided, as the appeal was withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Lan Finance Private Ltd., filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre for Assessment Year 2018-19. The dispute concerns an addition of Rs. 56,70,000/- made by the AO (National Faceless Assessment Centre) and upheld by the Appellate Authority, treating it as income under Section 68 or otherwise. The addition pertains to share capital introduced in Assessment Year 2012-13 from M/s Ramdut Infra Project Pvt. Ltd., which was subsequently struck off by the Registrar of Companies. The assessee argued that no fresh share capital was received in the year under appeal and that the strike-off of the shareholder does not invalidate past transactions. The assessee also contended that the order was non-speaking and violated natural justice. However, during the hearing, the assessee's counsel pointed out that a similar appeal for the same assessment year and issue (ITA No. 6285/Mum/2025) had already been adjudicated by a Coordinate Bench on 08.04.2026, allowing the assessee's appeal. Consequently, the assessee sought to withdraw the present appeal as infructuous.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of Rs. 56,70,000/- as income of the appellant under Section 68 or otherwise is valid, considering that no fresh share capital was received in the year under appeal (mixed law and fact, concerning Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). 2. Whether the addition is valid when the impugned sum was share capital introduced in AY 2012-13, when the shareholder company was active and legally existing (mixed law and fact, concerning Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). 3. Whether the strike-off of a shareholder by the Registrar of Companies renders the share capital invalid or taxable, given that strike-off does not invalidate past transactions (mixed law and fact, concerning Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). 4. Whether the addition confirmed without specifying the provision of the Act invoked renders the order arbitrary and non-speaking (procedural issue). 5. Whether the appellant's contention of violation of natural justice, due to inadequate time for SCN response and ignored submissions, was correctly rejected (procedural issue). Assessee's contentions: The addition of Rs. 56,70,000/- is erroneous as no fresh share capital was received in the year under appeal. The share capital was introduced in AY 2012-13 when the shareholder company was active. The strike-off of the shareholder by the RoC does not invalidate past transactions. The order is arbitrary and non-speaking as it fails to specify the invoked provision. Natural justice was violated due to inadequate time for SCN response and ignored submissions. The assessee also relied on the decision of a Coordinate Bench in ITA No. 6285/Mum/2025 for the same AY and issue, which allowed the appeal. Revenue's contentions: No specific contentions were recorded for the revenue in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI PAWAN SINGH & HON’BLE SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

For Appellant: Shri Aakash Kumar, CA
Pronounced: 27.05.2026

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI BENCH: A BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON’BLE SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA 5823/MUM/2025 िनधा�रणवष�/Assmt. Year: 2018-19) Permanent Account Number: AAACL1502F Lan Finance Private Ltd. DCIT, Circle-7(1)(1) Flat No. B-603, 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Harshad CHS Sion, New Marine Lines Vs. Chunnabhatti East Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 022. (अपीलाथ� Appellant) (��थ� Respondent)

िनधा�रती�ारा/Assessee represented by: Shri Aakash Kumar, CA राज� व�ारा/Revenue represented Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR by:

सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of conclusion of hearing: 21-May-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date of pronouncement: 27.05.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre for the Assessment Year 2018- 19.

2.

Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

3.

The issue involved in the present appeal is in respect of addition of Rs. 56,70,000/- made under section 68 of the Act towards share capital received from Ramdut Infra Project Pvt. Ltd., which has been strike-off by the Registrar of Companies (RoC).

3.1. On this set of facts, ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset pointed out that the present appeal has been inadvertently filed for the second time as the other appeal filed by the assessee for the same assessment year, on the same issue has already been adjudicated by the Coordinate Bench in ITA No. 6285/Mum/2025 vide order dated 08.04.2026. Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed on record, copy of order the Coordinate Bench and demonstrated exactness of the issue raised by the assessee and dealt with by the Coordinate Bench for the addition so made, allowing the appeal. In view of this fact, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted to withdraw the present appeal being infructuous, to which no objection was raised by the Revenue.

4.

We have perused the records and considering the same, dismiss the present appeal of the assessee as withdrawn.

5.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 27.05.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (Pawan Singh) (Girish Agrawal) Judicial Member Accountant Member PS Mumbai Dated: 27.05.2026 Copy to:

M/s. Lan Finance Private Ltd. Flat No. B-603, 6th Floor, Harshad CHS Sion, Chunnabhatti 1 East Mumbai-400 022.

2 NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTER (NFAC), DELHI WARD 12(2)(1), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA, 400020 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, MUMBAIBENCH 5 GUARD FILE

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →