M/S PODDAR FININ CONSULTANCY P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-7(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1860/MUM/2020Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 April 2022AY 2012-1336 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that the addition of share premium as income under Section 68 was justified due to the assessee's failure to offer any explanation regarding the nature and source of the credits. The Tribunal also noted the assessee's non-appearance and lack of cooperation throughout the proceedings.

What were the facts?

The assessee company, incorporated in January 2012, received a share premium of Rs. 4,93,50,000/- within 73 days of incorporation. Despite repeated notices, the assessee failed to provide any explanation or substantiation for these receipts to the Assessing Officer (AO) or the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether the share premium received by the assessee constituted unexplained cash credits under Section 68, and whether adequate opportunity was provided to the assessee during the assessment proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM

Hearing: 16/03/2022Pronounced: 07/04/2022

PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM: The assessee has filed the present appeal against the order dated 06.08.2020 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- Thane [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] relevant to the A.Y.2012-13. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds: - “1) The assessment order passed by the Id. Assessing Officer (AO) is invalid and bad in law. 2) (a) The Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] erred in law and facts in confirming the action of the ld. Assessing Officer A.Y. 2012-13 [AO] in making a

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 →