MAA CHHINMASTIKA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,SAMASTIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), PATNA, PATNA

ITA 11/PAT/2026Status: HeardITAT Patna23 September 2026AY 2012-20134 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal noted that a perusal of the assessment order clearly showed that the assessee had not produced evidence to substantiate its claim before the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer had also categorically mentioned the lack of corroborative evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order, which had restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. This restoration was granted to provide the assessee an opportunity to produce all necessary evidence to substantiate its claim before the Assessing Officer. The ratio decidendi is that where an assessee fails to produce evidence before the Assessing Officer, the appellate authorities may restore the issue to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to present evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Maa Chhinmastika Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., is in appeal against the order of the CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI, for the assessment year 2012-13. The assessee had received share application money of Rs. 62,00,000/- in assessment year 2007-08, which was scrutinized under section 143(3). Shares were allotted in assessment year 2012-13, and the amount was transferred to the capital account. The assessee admitted some delay in share allotment. The revenue contended that the assessee did not cooperate with the assessing officer and produced evidence before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition made by the Assessing Officer is justified, considering the share application money received in AY 2007-08 was allotted shares in AY 2012-13 and transferred to the capital account, despite a delay in allotment. (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's contention: The addition is not called for as the share application money received in AY 2007-08 was transferred to the capital account by issuing shares in AY 2012-13, and the delay in allotment, though admitted, does not warrant an addition. Revenue's contention: The assessee did not cooperate with the assessing authority. The CIT(A) restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after the assessee produced various evidences before the CIT(A). The order of the CIT(A) should be upheld.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PATNA BENCH PATNA

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

Hearing: 23/09/2026Pronounced: 23/09/2026

Per George Mathan, JM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] in appeal no.NFAC/2011-12/10044777 dated 09.12.2025 for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. Shri Nishant Maitin, CA appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Ravi Kant Chowdhary, Sr. D.R. represented on behalf of the revenue.

3.

It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee had received share application money of Rs.62,00,000/- during the ass

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →