M/S BLUPEX NIRYAT PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2346/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 December 2025AY 2009-2010Bench: the AO name, address, PAN, balance sheet, bank statement etc. to prove the genuineness of share application money received. The ADIT (Inv.), Unit 3(4) issued summons under Section 131 of the Act to the allottee company which was not responded. We note that the assessee has issued 10,000 equity shares at the face value of Rs.10/- and premium of Rs.90/-. Consequently, the AO added the amount under Section 68 of the Act which was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A).3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had furnished all necessary details, but neither the AO nor the Ld. CIT(A) conducted proper verification. It was held that non-compliance with summons under Section 131 by the share applicant cannot be the sole ground for an addition in the assessee's hands, citing multiple precedents. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and directed the AO to delete the addition.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an ROI for AY 2009-10 declaring income of Rs. 15,000/-, which was later reopened under Section 147. The AO added Rs. 10.00 lacs under Section 68 as unexplained cash credit for share application money received from M/s Point view Pvt. Ltd., which was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). The addition was based on the non-response to summons issued under Section 131 to the allottee company.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made under Section 68 for unexplained cash credit can be sustained solely based on the share applicant's non-compliance with summons under Section 131, despite the assessee furnishing all requisite details.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 68,Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 131

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)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, “SMC” BENCH,KOLKATA

Appearances by: Assessee represented by : Robin Maheshwari, Adv. Department represented by : Monalisa Pal Mukherjee, Sr. DR Date of concluding the hearing : 18.12.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 23.12.2025 O R D E R The present appeal filed by the assessee arises from order dated 11.08.2025passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolkata- 21[hereafter “the Ld.CIT(A)].

2.

The only issue raised by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition of Rs. 10.00 lacs as made by the AO u/s 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit in respect of share application money received from M/s Point view Pvt. Ltd.

3.

The facts in brief are that the assessee filed return of income on 15.09.2009 declaring total income of Rs. 15,000/-. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 BlupexNiryat Private Limited of the Act on 17.03.2016. In compliance the assessee filed return of income on 04.10.2016. Thereafter, notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire were duly filed by the assessee and the assessee filed before the AO name, address, PAN, balance sheet, bank statement etc. to prove the genuineness of share application money received. The ADIT (Inv.), Unit 3(4) issued summons u/s 131 of the Act to the allottee company which was not responded. We note that the assessee has issued 10,000 equity shares at the face value of Rs. 10/- and premium of Rs. 90/-. Consequently, the AO added the amount u/s 68 of the Act which was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A).

4.

We note that the assessee has furnished all the details the information/details before the AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A) but neither of them done any verification nor pointed out any defect in the evidences filed by the assessee. The ld CIT(A) confirmed the addition merely on the ground that there was no compliance to summons u/s 131 of the Act by allottee company. In our opinion, this cannot be a ground for making the addition in the hands of the assessee as has been held in the case of CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC), (ii) CIT Vs. Orchid Industries Ltd. 397 ITR 136 (Bom), (iii) Crystal Networks Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 353 ITR 171 (Kol), (iv)ITO Vs. M/s. Cygnus Developers India Pvt. Ltd.(ITA No. 282/Kol/2012) and (v) Joy Consolidated Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITA No. 547/Kol/2020. Consequently, we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition.

5.

In result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced on 23.12.2025

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →