ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VEJALPUR vs. MAHIP INDUSTRIES LIMITED , DHOLKA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 982/AHD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 April 2026AY 2015-165 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not properly consider the remand report from the Assessing Officer and did not provide the assessee with a proper opportunity to respond. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a company manufacturing corrugated boxes, filed its return for AY 2015-16. The Assessing Officer made several additions, including share application money and unsecured loans, due to non-compliance with notices. The CIT(A) deleted most of these additions.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting additions related to share application money and unsecured loans without proper consideration of the remand report and providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH

Before: DR. BRR Kumar & Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH Before: DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President And Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member ITA No: 982/Ahd/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16

Assistant Commissioner Mahip Industries Ltd. of Income Tax, Vs Survey No. 127 Circle-2(1)(1), Jalalpur, Ahmedabad Godhneshwar, Dholka, Bagodara Highway Tal. Dholka Gujarat-382225 PAN: AAACC7720L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Revenue Represented: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR Assessee Represented: Shri Pritesh Shah, C.A.

Date of hearing : 12-02-2026 Date of pronouncement : 22-04-2026 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

This appeal is filed by the Revenue as against appellate order dated 11-03-2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as “CIT(A)”), arising out of the exparte assessment order passed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2015-16.

I.T.A No. 982/Ahd/24 A.Ys. 2015-16 2 ACIT Vs. Mahip Industries Ltd.

2.

Brief facts of the case is that assessee is a company engaged in manufacturing of corrugated boxes. For the Asst. Year 2015-16, assessee filed his Return of Income on 10-12-2015 declaring total income of Rs.88,80,130/-. The return was taken for scrutiny assessment. The assessee failed to comply with various notices, thereby the assessing officer made the following additions by passing exparte assessment order:

Income as per return dated 10-12-2015 Rs. 88,80,130/- Add: Addition/Disallowance as discussed above 1 Disallowance u/s. 36(1)(va) Rs. 1,17,329/- 2 Addition on account of gross profit Rs. 1,19,38,040/- determination 3 Share application money received Rs. 3,02,00,000/- 4 Unsecured Loan Rs. 67,39,514/- 5 Interest expenditure Rs. 7,18,432/- 6 Depreciation on plant and machinery Rs. 47,25,116/- 7 Disallowance of depreciation claimed on Rs. 63,082/- heavy vehicle 8 Disallowance u/s. 14A Rs. 1,93,767/- Total Assessed Income Rs. 6,35,75,410/- 3. Aggrieved against the assessment order, assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who has confirmed the disallowance made u/s. 36(1)(va), depreciation claimed on heavy vehicles and disallowance made u/s. 14A of the Act. The remaining additions namely gross profit determination of Rs.1.19 crores, share application money of Rs.3.02 crores, unsecured loan of Rs.67.39 lakhs, interest expenditure of Rs.7.18 lakhs, depreciation on plant and machinery of Rs. 47,25,116/- were deleted by Ld. CIT(A).

4.

Aggrieved against the appellate order, the Revenue is in appeal before us raising the Revised Grounds of Appeal:

I.T.A No. 982/Ahd/24 A.Ys. 2015-16 3 ACIT Vs. Mahip Industries Ltd.

1.

On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.3,02,00,000/- made u/s. 68 of the Act on account of unexplained cash credits received in the form of share application money. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.67,39,514/- made u/s.68 of the Act on account of unsecured loan. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.7,18,432/ on account of interest expenditure. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of depreciation of Rs.47,25,116/-on plant and machinery. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance made by the 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(iii) of IT Rules, 1962, 6. "The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground, which may be necessary". 7. "It is, therefore, prayed that the order of Ld. CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored".

5.

Regarding Ground No. 1 unexplained cash credit received in the form of share application money of Rs.3.02 crores. The assessee company issued 3,02,000 number of equity shares at a price of Rs.100/- each to Sahil Enterprise 235500-shares, Mamta Rajiv Agrawal 42000-shares and Rajiv Agrawal 24500-shares. During appellate proceedings, the assessee produced various documents in support of the share application money namely Board resolution dated 01-03-2015 which was filed with ROC in form MGT 14, allotment of shares on 18-03-2015, etc.

6.

The Ld. CIT(A) said to have called for Remand Report from the assessing officer but without furnishing the Remand Report to the

I.T.A No. 982/Ahd/24 A.Ys. 2015-16 4 ACIT Vs. Mahip Industries Ltd.

assessee and calling for a Rejoinder from the assessee deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer. Perusal of the appellate order clearly shows that no discussion about the Remand Report furnished by the assessing officer. Whereas the Revenue in its Paper Book at Page Nos. 46 to 53 filed the Remand Report dated 24-10-2019 filed by the Assessing Officer wherein requested to confirm the every addition made by the Assessing Officer. Even on the unexplained share application money, the Ld. CIT(A) has discussed only about Sahil Enterprise and no discussion about the share allotments made to Rajiv Agrawal & Mamta Rajiv Agrawal. Therefore in the interest of justice, we deem it fit to set-aside the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to give copy of the Remand Report to the assessee company and get the Rejoinder from the assessee and then pass a speaking order in accordance with law by giving proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

7.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 22-04-2026

Sd/- Sd/- (DR. BRR KUMAR) (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) VICE PRESIDENT True Copy JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 22/04/2026 आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A)

I.T.A No. 982/Ahd/24 A.Ys. 2015-16 5 ACIT Vs. Mahip Industries Ltd.

5.

DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →