M/S AMRIT CEMENT LIMITED ,OPPOSITE HORSE SHOE BUILDING, UMLAPER VILLAGE, ELA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIR 4(1), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN POORVA,

ITA 1557/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 October 2026AY 2013-14102 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Amrit Cement Limited, is in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for assessment years 2011-12 to 2018-19. The primary dispute concerns an addition of ₹69,76,50,000/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) and confirmed by the CIT(A) under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, treating share capital/premium as unexplained cash credit. A search and seizure operation was conducted on the assessee's premises on August 30, 2012. Subsequently, notices under Section 153A were issued. The AO issued notices under Section 133(6) to share subscribers, who provided details. However, directors of these companies did not appear in response to summons under Section 131. The AO made the addition, which was upheld by the CIT(A) despite multiple remand reports where AO stated that enquiries were replied to and summons were complied with.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the addition of ₹69,76,50,000/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not justified. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer (AO) had initially issued notices under Section 133(6) to the share subscribers, who responded with details and evidence. Crucially, during the appellate proceedings, two remand reports were called for. The first remand report, dated November 30, 2015, indicated that summons under Section 131 were issued to the directors of the eleven share subscriber companies, and in compliance, directors Mr. Pradeep Kumar Bagla and Mr. Sunil Kumar Khemka appeared and their statements were recorded. They explained the source of funds for the share application money. The second remand report also addressed the issue. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had reproduced these remand reports in his order but failed to give them due cognizance. The CIT(A)'s decision was based on the AO's assessment order, which was superseded by the findings in the remand reports. The Tribunal found that the directors' appearance and explanation regarding the source of funds, as recorded in the remand reports, satisfied the conditions for establishing the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions. Therefore, the addition was deleted.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of ₹69,76,50,000/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is justified, considering the share capital and premium received from eleven corporate entities? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argues that the addition confirmed by the CIT(A) is erroneous as it disregards the findings in the two remand reports. These reports indicated that the sources of the subscribers were explained, enquiry letters under Section 133(6) were fully responded to with evidence, and summons under Section 131 were complied with by the directors of the subscriber companies. The assessee contends that the CIT(A) failed to consider these reports, relying instead on the original assessment order. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through the AO and subsequently the CIT(A), treated the share capital/premium as unexplained cash credit. The AO's primary reason for the addition was the non-appearance of directors of the subscriber companies in response to summons under Section 131, thus failing to establish the existence, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the transactions as per the requirements of Section 68. The CIT(A) also noted that the share subscribers shared the same registered office address as the assessee and that key persons of the assessee were also controlling persons of these entities, raising concerns about their independence and financial credibility.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 133(6),Section 131,Section 153A,Section 143(3),Section 271AAB,Section 139(1),Section 132(1),Section 250(4)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM & SHRIPRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsiyan
For Respondent: Shri Raman Garg, DR
Hearing: 21.07.2026Pronounced: 13.10.2026

Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

These are appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-27, (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 28.02.2026, 11.03.2026, 07.03.2026, 09.04.2026, 24.03.2026, 12.03.2026, 03.06.2026 for the AYs 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013- 14, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2015-16, 2018-19. IT(SS)A No. 54 & 55/K/26 & ITA Nos. 1556, 1557, 1559, 1564, 1558, 2162/K/26 Amrit Cement Limited; A.Y. 2012-13, 2013

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 →