KANORIA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1),, KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the share application money received in earlier years, and reflected in audited balance sheets, cannot be assessed as unexplained cash credit in the current year. The allotment of shares was an adjustment of previously received funds.
What were the facts?
The assessee received share application money in earlier assessment years, which was reflected in its audited balance sheets. In the impugned year, the assessee allotted shares and credited share capital and premium by adjusting these earlier amounts. The Assessing Officer treated the entire amount as unexplained cash credit.
What were the issues?
Whether share allotment made out of share application money received in earlier years can be treated as unexplained cash credit in the current assessment year.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, KOLKATA
Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:
This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 14.11.2024 for the AY 2016-17.
At the outset, we note that the appeal of the assessee is barred by limitation by 255 days. At the time of hearing the counsel of the assessee explained the reasons for delay in filing the appeal. The Ld. D.R strongly oppsed the condoning of the delay. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the delay is for bonafide and genuine reasons and , hence,
The only issue raised by the assessee in the various grounds of appeal is against the order of Ld. CIT (A), confirming the addition of ₹2,14,33,000/- as made by the Ld. AO u/s 68 of the Act by way of unexplained cash credit.
The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 03.10.2016, showing total income at ₹nil, which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. The assessee was engaged in the business of property development. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices along with questionnaire were duly issued and served upon the assessee, which was complied with by the assessee by furnishing all the details and evidences as called for. The Ld. AO on the basis of the reply of the assessee observed that during the year, the assessee had raised fresh paid up share capital of ₹30,00,000/- and share premium of ₹1,77,25,000/- by issue of fresh equity shares and accordingly, called upon the assessee to explain the same. The assessee did not comply with the notices/ show cause notices issued and consequently, the Ld. AO treated the entire share capital/ share premium as unexplained cash credit and added the same to the income of the assessee.
In the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT (A) restored the issue to the file of the Ld. AO for denovo adjudication despite the fact that all the compliances were made before the Ld. CIT (A) and all the necessary evidences/documents were placed on record.
After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the assessee has received the share
i. CIT vs. Prameshwar Bohra [2008] 301 ITR 0404 (Raj) ii. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-VI vs. Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd. [2009] 183 Taxman 277 (Delhi)/[2008] 301 ITR 384 (Delhi)[14-03-2008]
6.2. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 22.04.2026.
Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY) (RAJESH KUMAR) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 22.04.2026 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT DR, ITAT, 4. 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, True Copy//
Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Shree Sushruta Health Services Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Rst Batteries vs. Deputy Commissioner CGST Delhi West & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Dr.Sunil Kumar Padhi vs. The Chief Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- N.K Fashion Through It Proprietor Mr. Narender Agarwal vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Delhi EastDelhi · 14 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetanj Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026