PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- UDAIPUR vs. M/S SAILEELA SYNTHETICS PVT. LTD.

This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as Act of 1961) has been preferred by the appellant-Income Tax Department claiming the following reliefs: “It is, therefore, prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed. By an appropriate order or direction, the impugned order dated 21.12.2020 passed by the Tribunal may kindly be set aside and the order of AO may kindly be restored and upheld. Any other order which may be considered just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the appellant. Cost of the appeal be awarded in favour of the appellant.”

The respondent-Company (assessee) is engaged in the manufacturing & trading of synthetic fabric and filed its e-return on 28.09.2015 declaring its total income as Rs.1,14,56,120/-. Thereafter, the case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and a (Uploaded on 20/03/2024 at 05:10:52 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:45:25 AM)

1 The respondent Company, during the Assessment Year 2015- 16, raised its share capital by allotment of equity shares; firstly it issued 1,81,816 number of equity shares and later issued 3,40,665 number of equity shares, in total 5,22,481 numbers of equity shares each having face value of Rs. 10/- and share premium of Rs. 45/- and Rs. 50/- were issued to total 11 companies. The respondent-Company accordingly, received a sum of Rs.3,04,39,780/- on allotment of total 5,22,481 paid up shares.

2 As per the appellant, the details furnished by the respondent -Company regarding the said 11 companies was not found to be proper, and therefore the Income Tax Department issued Assessment Order (AO) dated 29.12.2017, assessing the total income of the respondent-Company as Rs. 4,20,76,100/- including lump-sum addition, employees contribution towards ESI, and on account of unsecured loan of Rs.25 lacs and interest on unsecured loan Rs. 24,658/- under Section 143 (3) of the Act of 1961 and tax and interest was charged as per ITNS-150, and the penalty proceedings under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act of 1961 were initiated.

3 Being aggrieved by the aforesaid assessment order dated 29.12.2017, the respondent-Company preferred an appeal (Appeal No. 557/2017-2018) before the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Uploaded on 20/03/2024 at 05:10:52 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:45:25 AM)

Being aggrieved by the order dated 13.03.2018 passed by the learned CIT, the appellant preferred an appeal (I.T.A. No. 279/ Jodh/2018) before the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, (in short, ‘Appellate Tribunal’). The learned Appellate Tribunal vide the impugned order dated 21.12.2020 dismissed the said appeal. The copy of the said order was received on 10.02.2021. Thus, being aggrieved of the said order, the present appeal has been preferred claiming the afore-quoted reliefs.

Learned counsel for the appellant-Department submits that during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer had made enquiry under Section 133 (6) of the Act of 1961 regarding those 11 Companies stated by the respondent-Company, wherein none of the Companies filed a reply to the notice and even the five notices have been returned by the postal authority with the remark “Left”.

Learned counsel further submits that the details of shareholders/investors Companies of the assessee was furnished on 15.12.2017 and thereafter on 28.12.2017, new addresses of investor companies were provided, which is clearly at the end of the year, and the same was done to avoid and evade verification (Uploaded on 20/03/2024 at 05:10:52 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:45:25 AM)

Learned counsel also submits that the respondent-Company did not explain the allotment of total 5,22,481 paid up shares, but the learned CIT has deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer without appreciating the facts of the case and the same was also upheld by the Appellate Tribunal vide the impugned order, and therefore, the present appeal has been preferred raising the substantial questions of law.

Heard the counsel for the appellant-Department as well as perused the record of the case.

This Court observes that the respondent-Company filed its e- return on 28.09.2015 declaring a total income of Rs. 1,14,56,120/-. Thereafter, the case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and notices were issued. The respondent-Company raised its share capital by allotment of equity shares; firstly, it issued 1,81,816 number of equity shares, and later, issued 3,40,665 number of equity shares, in total 5,22,481 number of equity shares each having face value of Rs. 10/- and share premium of Rs. 45/- and Rs. 50/- were issued to total 11 companies; the respondent-Company received a sum of Rs. 3,04,39,780/- on allotment of total 5,22,481 shares.

Thereafter, the appellant-Department issued the Assessment Order (AO) dated 29.12.2017, assessing the respondent- Company’s total income as Rs. 4,20,76,100/-, and accordingly, the penalty proceedings under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act of 1961 (Uploaded on 20/03/2024 at 05:10:52 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:45:25 AM)

This Court further observes that subject to the remarks, as contained in the assessment order dated 29.12.2017, the assessee’s total income was computed as indicated in the following table, as mentioned in the said order: Income as per Return of Income filed by the assessee Rs.1,14,56,120/- Add:- (i) As discussed in Para-3 above u/s.68 of the I.T. Act. Rs.3,04,39,780/- (ii) Lump-sum addition as discussed in Para-4 Rs.1,50,000/- (iii)

This Court also observes that the grounds of appeal as raised by the present respondent-Company before the learned CIT are reproduced as hereunder:

This Court further observes that the respondent-Company furnished each and every necessary and requisite documents to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the persons from whom the respondent-Company received share application(s) and the same was recorded in the order dated 13.03.2018 of the learned CIT; relevant portion whereof is reproduced hereunder:- “4.4 The appellant has furnished, in respect of each person following documentary evidences to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the persons from whom the appellant has received share application money and genuineness of the transactions: ➢ Copy of the share applications ➢ Copy of Bank statement of shareholder showing that it had sufficient balance in its accounts to enable it to subscribe to the share capital ➢ Acknowledgement copy of Income Tax Return of shareholder (Uploaded on 20/03/2024 at 05:10:52 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:45:25 AM)

This Court also observes that once the respondent-Company furnished all the relevant and requisite documents, and in the assessment order, there is nothing which could show that the respondent-Company introduced its own income from undisclosed sources in the form of shares; the assessment order was passed only on the basis of suspicion and doubt, which is not permissible under the law, as has rightly been held by the learned CIT in its order, which in turn has rightly been upheld by the learned Appellate Tribunal vide the impugned order.

This Court further observes that the learned CIT as well as learned Appellate Tribunal have rightly ordered deletion of the above-said amounts, because the respondent-Company had furnished all the required the details, and further held that it cannot be said to be an unexplained credit under Section 68 of the Act of 1961. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal is justified in law. (Uploaded on 20/03/2024 at 05:10:52 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:45:25 AM)

This Court also observes that in the Assessment Order there is a disallowance of Rs. 1,50000/- out of various expenses, and the said disallowing is on a higher side and the same was considered by the learned CIT, and that the disallowance was restricted to Rs.75,000/- and the respondent-Company got the relief of Rs. 75,000/-, which is completely justified in law.

This Court further observes that there is another aspect regarding the Assessment Order to the effect that there is disallowance of Rs.5540/- of employees contribution to ESI, and in this regard, the learned CIT directed the Assessment Officer to verify the contention of the respondent-Company that the employees’ contribution towards PF and ESI was deposited on or before the due date of filing the return under Section 139 (1) of the act of 1961; the same was upheld by the learned Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, now the same does not require any reconsideration by this Court.

This Court further observes that there are concurrent findings arrived at by the learned CIT as well as learned Appellate Tribunal, which are well reasoned and have been arrived at after taking into due consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and upon duly analyzing the material available on record before them.

Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and looking into the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the appellant in the present appeal. (Uploaded on 20/03/2024 at 05:10:52 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:45:25 AM)

Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of. (MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 68-SKant/- Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 20/03/2024 at 05:10:52 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:45:25 AM)