Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 1.40 crore under Section 68 for share application money, as the assessee failed to prove the identity of the creditors. The assessee contended before the Ld. CIT(A) and the Tribunal that the money was received in a year preceding the impugned assessment year, not in the assessment year under consideration.
Held
The Tribunal condoned a delay of 666 days in filing the appeal and admitted it for hearing. The issue was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication and for examination as to the correct year in which the money was received by the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the addition under Section 68 for share application money was correctly made in the impugned assessment year, or if the funds were received in an earlier assessment year.
Sections Cited
68
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA
O R D E R
Per George Mathan, JM :
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 23.05.2023, passed by the ld.CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for A.Y.2012-2013.
Shri Miraj D. Shah, ld. AR appeared on behalf of the assessee and Ms. Ranu Biswas, ld. Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.
At the outset, we find that the appeal of the assessee is barred by 666 days. In this regard the assessee has sworn in affidavit that due to lack of knowledge about the passing of the appellate order for which the assessee could not file the appeal before the Tribunal within the stipulated time. This contention of the assessee is plausible and not found to be false. Accordingly, we condone the delay and the appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. 4. It was submitted by the ld. AR that admittedly the AO had made addition u/s.68 of the Act in respect of share application money received to an extent of Rs.1,40,00,000/- because the assessee was unable to prove the identity of the creditors. It was the submission that on appeal before the ld. CIT(A), it was specifically brought to the attention in Form 35 that the money was received in the year preceding to the previous year in the bank of the assessee and consequently no addition in respect of the said share application money could be made during the impugned assessment year. The ld. AR drew our attention to page 4 of the order of the ld. CIT(A). It was the submission that admittedly before the ld. CIT(A) there was no compliance. It was the prayer that the issue may be restored to the file of AO to examine as to whether the assessee has received the money during the impugned assessment year or in the earlier assessment year. It was the submission that if the money was not received during the impugned assessment year, no addition could be made in the impugned assessment year.
In reply, the ld. Sr.DR vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below.
We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A) wherein he has extracted the statement of facts, clearly shows that the assessee has categorically mentioned that the money has not been received in this year but has been received in the year preceding to the previous year in the bank account of the assessee. This needs to be examined. In these circumstances, the issue in this appeal is restored to the file of the ld.AO for readjudication and for examination as to the year in which the money was received by the assessee and we do so. In