Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM
(Assessment Year:2012-13) Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(3) Piyush Suppliers Pvt. ltd. Income Tax Officer, 4, BBD Bag (East) Stephen House, 2 nd Floor, Ward 9(3), Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Room No.24, Kolkata-700001 P-7, Chowrinjee Square, West Bengal 5th Floor, Kolkata-700069 West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AABCP7048P Assessee by : Shri Dilip Kumar Patni, AR Revenue by : Shri Raja Sengupta, DR Date of hearing: 13.03.2025 Date of pronouncement : 17.03.2025 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:
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 28.12.2023 for the AY 2012-13.
The only issue raised by the assessee is against the confirmation of addition of ₹2,50,00,000/- by the ld. CIT (A) as made by the ld. AO on account of unexplained share capital/ share premium.
The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 29.09.2012, declaring total loss of ₹54,478. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were duly issued and served upon the assessee along with questionnaire. The ld. AO on perusal of the assessment records observed that the assessee company has issued 2,50,000 equity share of face value of 10/- each
In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee after taking into account the contentions/ submissions of the assessee by holding that the section 68 was correctly invoked by the ld. AO after discussing the details of the allottees on page no.8 and 9 of the appellate order and after following certain decisions as mentioned on page no.10 and 11 of the appellate order.
(i) 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.
Under these facts and circumstances and considering underlying facts in the light of ratio laid down in the decisions as noted above , we are inclined to set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) by directing the AO to delete the addition.
In the result, the appeal of the assesseeis allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 17.03.2025.