Loading judgment…
Facts
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which deleted additions made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The additions were related to share capital and premium received by the assessee from certain companies. The AO had treated these as unexplained cash credits due to the untraceable nature of the applicant companies and the failure to prove their genuineness and creditworthiness.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had deleted the additions without fully examining the facts and legal precedents. The Tribunal found that the assessee had failed to discharge its onus to prove the genuineness, identity, and creditworthiness of the share applicants. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions made under Section 68 without adequately examining the genuineness, identity, and creditworthiness of the share applicants, and whether the assessee had discharged its onus to prove these aspects.
Sections Cited
68, 131, 133(6), 143(3), 147, 148, 250, 251, 253, 124(3)(a), 142(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA
order
: 11-August-2025 ORDER
PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
The appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax “ The assessee carried the matter on appeal to the Tribunal which was allowed the assessee’s appeal by the impugned order when surprisingly the Tribunal has not discussed or dealt with the correctness of the findings recorded by the appellate authority, which, was done after a detailed factual exercise. The Tribunal has stated in the impugned order that on perusal of the paper book and document three factors have been proved by the assessee. This, is wholly
It is not comprehensible whether the assessee had raised this issue before the Ld. AO as per the provision of section 124(3)(a) of the Act. Since this issue has not been adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A) therefore, the matter needs to be remanded to the Ld. CIT(A) who shall examine the facts of the case, consider the evidence filed by the assessee and adjudicate the issue as the appeal has already been set aside to be done afresh in the Department’s appeal.
Hence, in view of the discussion made above and to sum up, since the facts have not been correctly appreciated while deciding the appeal, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is liable to be set aside as the judicial precedents laid down by the Apex Court in the case of PCIT(Central)-1 vs NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. relied upon by the Revenue in the grounds of appeal and others as cited in the preceding paras have not been considered. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the appeal to him to be decided afresh, who shall allow an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and also grant an opportunity of representing the case and be heard to the Ld. AO as per rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, if required, and thereby pass an order in