LIFEWOOD AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BOWBAZAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1098/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 October 2026AY 2013-148 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit for AY 2013-14 was unjustified. The Tribunal noted that the cheques for share application monies, totaling Rs. 1,00,00,000/-, were dated 30/31.03.2012, falling within FY 2011-12 (AY 2012-13), and shares were allotted in that year. Although the cheques were encashed in April 2012, the credit was recorded in the books for FY 2011-12. The AO, in his remand report, had categorically found that the transaction related to AY 2012-13 and not AY 2013-14. This finding was supported by the assessment order for AY 2012-13, where the AO's predecessor had already added the same sum as an unexplained cash credit. Furthermore, the AO had examined the details of the share subscribers, including IT acknowledgments, audited financials, MOA & AOA, bank statements, and PAN cards, and found them to be in order. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition. The ratio decidendi is that a transaction recorded in a particular financial year, supported by documentary evidence and already taxed in that year, cannot be re-characterized and taxed again in a subsequent assessment year, especially when the genuineness of the transaction and subscribers has been verified.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Lifewood Agencies Private Limited, is in appeal before the ITAT against the order of the NFAC, Delhi, for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. The appeal challenges the confirmation of an addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO had reopened the assessment based on information suggesting accommodation entries. The assessee contended that the impugned amounts were received as share application monies in Financial Year (FY) 2011-12, relevant to AY 2012-13, and not AY 2013-14. Despite the AO's remand report agreeing with the assessee and finding the share subscriber details in order, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition, stating the assessee failed to substantiate identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2013-14 is justified when the transaction pertained to FY 2011-12 (AY 2012-13)? Assessee's Contentions: - The impugned amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- was received as share application money in FY 2011-12 and allotted shares in the same year. Therefore, it was wrongly considered for AY 2013-14. - The AO, in his remand report, had examined the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share subscribers and found them to be in order. - The same sum of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- was already added in AY 2012-13 by the AO's predecessor, making the current addition a case of double taxation, which is impermissible. - Relied on the AO's remand report and the assessment order for AY 2012-13. Revenue's Contentions: - Since the CIT(A) failed to consider the AO's remand report, the matter should be restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 250,Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 133(6),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, KOLKATA

For Appellant: Shri Akkal, Ms. Vidhi Ladia, ARs
For Respondent: Shri B.S. Anand, Sr. DR
Hearing: 02.09.2026Pronounced: 30.10.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No.1098/KOL/2026 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14)

Lifewood Agencies Private Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Kolkata Limited Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, 285B, B.B Ganguly Street, 2 nd Chowringhee Square, Kolkata- Floor, Kolkata-700012 700069 (Respondent) PAN No. AACCL1918K Assessee by : Shri Akkal Dudhwewala & Ms. Vidhi Ladia, ARs Revenue by : Shri B.S. Anand, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 02.09.2026 Date of pronouncement: 30.10.2026

O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This is an Appeal preferred by the Assessee challenging the order of the NFAC, Delhi [(hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 23.02.2026 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [(hereinafter referred to as the “Act”] for the A.Y.2013-14.

2.

The issue raised in the various grounds of the appeal is against the order of ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- as made by the AO in respect of Share capital/share premium as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act.

7.

After hearing the rival submissions and perusing the material placed on record, we find that the assessee had received cheques from the share subscribers all dated 30/31.03.2012 totaling to Rs.1,00,00,000/- towards share application monies in FY 2011-12 and had issued the share capital in that year itself. We observe that though these cheques were received in FY 2011-12 but they were encashed across several dates in April 2012. The fact however remains that the impugned amount was credited in the books of accounts for FY 2011-12. We find that the AO in his remand report had examined this particular aspect and thereafter recorded a categorical finding that the transaction in question did not relate to AY 2013-14 but the preceding AY 2012-13. This finding of the AO is also supported by the income-tax assessment of the assessee for AY 2012-13 framed u/s 143(3) of the Act, much prior to the impugned reassessment, wherein the AO’s predecessor had added the impugned credits of Rs.1,00,00,000/- by way of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act in that year. Also, the AO has examined the details of the share subscribers including their IT acknowledgments, audited financials, MOA & AOA, bank statements, PAN cards etc. and found the same to be in order. Having considered these fact on record, we are of the view that the Ld. CIT(A) was unjustified in confirming the addition of Rs.1,00,00,000/- and therefore we direct the AO to delete the same. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced on 30.10.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY) (RAJESH KUMAR) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 30.10.2026 Deepak Prakash, P.S Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT 5. Guard file.

//TRUE COPY// BY ORDER, MANISH Digitally signed by MANISH KUMAR KUMAR BHOI Date: 2026.11.02 BHOI 12:05:39 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →