SHREE BALAJI BAKERIES PRIVATE LIMITED,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 4(1) RAIPUR, RAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 85/RPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Raipur26 October 2026AY 2014-154 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that it was an admitted fact that certain documents were not filed before the Assessing Officer (AO) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. While the assessee claimed these were public documents, their absence before the lower authorities was critical for deciding the issue. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal found it important that these documents be duly verified by the AO or CIT(A). Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide the assessee an opportunity of hearing and allow the filing of all necessary documents. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shree Balaji Bakeries Private Limited, filed its return for AY 2014-15 declaring an income of Rs. 5,66,610. The case was selected for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 50,60,000 on account of alleged non-genuine share application money received from six entities. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], who confirmed the additions, noting defects in the PAS-3 forms submitted with the Registrar of Companies (ROC). The assessee then appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). During the ITAT proceedings, it was admitted that certain documents (Sl. Nos. 8 to 15 and Sl. No. 17) were not filed before the AO or the CIT(A), although the assessee claimed they were public documents obtainable from the ROC.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of Rs. 50,60,000 on account of share application money under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is justified, considering that crucial documents were not filed before the lower authorities? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 68). Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the documents not filed before the AO and CIT(A) were public documents and could be obtained from the ROC. The assessee relied on the principle that justice should be done and that the opportunity to present all necessary documents should be given. Revenue's contentions: The revenue did not explicitly record its contentions regarding the non-filing of documents. However, by confirming the addition, it implicitly argued that the failure to produce these documents before the AO and CIT(A) supported the AO's conclusion regarding the genuineness of the share application money.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 143(3),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR

Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY & SHRI Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE

For Appellant: Shri Bikram Jain, CA
For Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

आदेश /ORDER

PER Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, A.M : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [Ld.CIT(A)], passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) for AY 2014-15 on 04.12.2025, emanating from the Assessment Order u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 29.12.2016.

Findings and Analysis :

2.

We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, the assessee had filed return of income on 27.11.2014 for AY 2014-15 declaring total income at Rs.5,66,610/-. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny as per CASS. Accordingly, various notices were issued. The

2 ITA No.85/RPR/2026, Shree Balaji Bakeries Private Limited

assessee filed certain replies. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer held that share application money received from the following persons were not genuine and accordingly made addition u/s 68 of the Act. Sl. No. Name of the persons Amount 1 Minolta Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata Rs.15,00,000/- 2 Ramdoot Vanijiya Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata Rs.5,00,0000/- 3 Winsher Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata Rs.10,00,000/- 4 Neha Agrawal Rs.8,60,000/- 5 Shishir Agrawal Rs.9,00,000/- 6 Sushil Agrawal Rs.3,00,000/- Total Rs.50,60,000/-

2.1 Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) observed certain defects in PAS-3 submitted with ROC. Finally, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions.

3.

The Ld. AR filed paper book containing documents and case laws. The certificate contained in the paper book is scanned and reproduced here as under :

3 ITA No.85/RPR/2026, Shree Balaji Bakeries Private Limited

3.1 Thus, it is an admitted fact in the certificate that documents at Sl. Nos. 8 to 15 and Sl. No. 17 were not filed before the AO and the Ld. CIT(A). The relevant index is scanned and reproduced here as under :

4.

Though, the assessee claims that these documents are public documents and can be obtained from ROC, however, the facts remains that these documents were not filed before the AO or the Ld. CIT(A). These documents are required to decide the issue under consideration. However, in the interest of justice, it is important that these documents are duly verified by the AO or the Ld. CIT(A).

5.

Since, admittedly, the assessee had filed above mentioned documents which were not filed before the AO or the Ld. CIT(A), in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) to the Ld. CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication. The Ld. CIT(A) shall provide opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee

4 ITA No.85/RPR/2026, Shree Balaji Bakeries Private Limited

shall be allowed to file all the necessary documents. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 26 October, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) (Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

पुणे/Pune; िदनांक/Dated : 26-10-2026 Ravi Kumar आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 1. ��थ� / The Respondent 2. 3. The concerned Pr. CIT, Pune 4. DR, ITAT, Raipur Bench, Raipur गाड� फाईल / Guard file. 5. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, SAMIRA Digitally signed by SAMIRAN BERA // True // True copy // N BERA Date: 2026.10.29 Assistant Registrar 16:22:29 +05'30' आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,पुणे/ITAT, Pune

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →