VIEWMORE ENCLAVE PVT. LTD.,,SILIGURI vs. ITO, WARD 9(1),, KOLKATA
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence (ITRs, financial statements, bank statements) to the AO and CIT(A) demonstrating the identity, creditworthiness of subscribers, and genuineness of transactions. It held that these documents were not additional evidence but were already before the lower authorities. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to delete the addition.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed its return declaring Nil income, but the case was selected for scrutiny due to a large share premium. The AO added ₹1,13,00,000 as unexplained cash credit under Section 68, citing non-compliance to summons for directors to prove source of investments. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition and rejected certain details filed by the assessee as additional evidence under Rule 46A.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition made by the AO under Section 68 regarding share capital/premium was justified, and whether the CIT(A) erred in rejecting evidence under Rule 46A.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, KOLKATA
This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 13.06.2025 for the AY 2012-13.
At the outset, we note that the appeal of the assessee is barred by limitation by 15 days. At the time of hearing the counsel of the assessee explained the reasons for delay in filing the appeal. The Ld. A.R did not raise any objection in condoning the delay. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the delay is for bonafide and genuine reasons and hence, we condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal in the following paras.
The issue raised in ground no.2 is against the order of learned CIT (A) confirming the addition of ₹1,13,00,000/- as made by the learned AO u/s 68 of the Act in respect share capital/ share premium
4.1. The facts in brief are that the assessee has filed the return of income on 29.03.2013, declaring total income at ₹nil. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS for large share premium. Accordingly, statutory notices along with questionnaire were issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee filed before the learned AO all the details of the investors, who subscribed the share capital of the assessee company. Summons u/s 131 of the Act were also issued to the directors of the assessee company for personal attendance and to produce the source of investments, however, there was no compliance. Finally, the learned AO treated the amount of share capital/ share premium as unexplained cash credit and added to the income of the assessee.
4.2. In the appellate proceedings, the learned CIT (A) in para no.5.6.1 observed that the learned AO specifically mentioned in order sheet dated 09.03.2015, that assessee filed the some documents which did not include the documents relating to share premium. The learned CIT (A) thus noted that the learned AO is justified in adding the said amount to the income of the assessee. Besides, the learned CIT (A) noted that the assessee filed certain details in respect of shareholders, which were considered by the assessee as additional evidences. The learned CIT (A) noted that since the assessee has not moved any application under Rule 46A of the Rules, therefore, rejected these evidences.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 03.12.2025.
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S. Sikka Motors PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shri Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
