GOLDMINE COMMODITIES PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

ITA 1194/AHD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 August 2025AY 2016-17Bench: the CIT(A). The CIT(A) by order dated 25/04/2024 confirmed the additions. Being further aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal before us.4. On perusal of the record, it is observed that: 1. The Form No. 36 filed by the assessee names as many as 30–35 “respondents/defendants” including Union of India, CBDT, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, and various individual officers, which is not permissible under section 253 of the Act. The only proper respondent in an income-tax appeal is 4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT dismissed the appeal as defective and not maintainable. It found that the Form No. 36 named impermissible respondents, the Statement of Facts was verbose and irrelevant, and the Grounds of Appeal were numerous, argumentative, and lacked specific grievance against the CIT(A)'s order, thus violating Rule 8 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed its return of income for AY 2016-17. During assessment under Section 143(3), an addition of Rs. 6,58,62,000/- was made under Section 56(2)(viib) for share capital/premium. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition, leading the assessee to file an appeal before the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal filed before the ITAT was maintainable given the naming of impermissible respondents, verbose and irrelevant Statement of Facts, and non-specific, argumentative Grounds of Appeal, violating Section 253 of the Income-tax Act and Rule 8 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 56(2)(viib),Section 253

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “ C ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: Ms SUCHITRA KAMBLE & SHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR

For Appellant: Shri Kishor Goyal, AR
Hearing: 12/08/2025Pronounced: 27/08/2025

PER MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, AM:

] ] This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 25/04/2024, passed in Appeal No. CIT(A)/Ahd-2/10217/2018-19 for A.Y. 2016–17, arising from the assessment

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 56(2)(viib)

All 746 judgments and leading authorities on Section 56(2)(viib) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →