Loading judgment…
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.
Held
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.
Key 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.
Sections Cited
143(3), 56(2)(viib), 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
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "ायपीठ “ C”, अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ C ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD सु"ी सुिच"ा का"ले, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी मकरंद वसंत महादेवकर, लेखा सद" के सम"। ] ] BEFORE Ms SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं / Year : 2016-17 Goldmine Commodities Pvt. Ltd., The Principal Commissioner Goldmine House, बनाम of Income Tax-1 / 4, Niranjan-Nirakar Society, Ahmedabad. v/s. Near Shreyas Railway Crossing, (Earlier know as Principal Ambawadi Commissioner of Income Ahmedabad-380007. Tax-2, Ahmedabad) (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AACCG1295L अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Kishor Goyal, AR Revenue by : Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 12/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 27/08/2025 आदेश/O R D E R 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 order passed under section 143(3) of Goldmine Commodities Pvt. Ltd. Vs. PCIT Assessment Year 2016-17 2 the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the ACIT, Circle 2(1)(1), Ahmedabad on 15/12/2018. Facts in Brief
The assessee filed its return of income on 05/10/2016 declaring total income of Rs. 3,26,60,820/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed u/s 143(3) on 15/12/2018. During assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had issued 6,00,000 equity shares of Rs. 10 each at a premium of Rs. 180 per share. After considering submissions, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 6,58,62,000/- on account of share capital/share premium under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act and raised a demand of Rs. 2,89,54,211/-.
3. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before 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.
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 the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. Goldmine Commodities Pvt. Ltd. Vs. PCIT Assessment Year 2016-17 3 2. The Statement of Facts runs into several pages containing verbose and unintelligible narrative couched in Latin maxims and allegations of conspiracy, contempt, and fraud against public servants. These averments are wholly irrelevant for the adjudication of an appeal under section 253 of the Act.
The Grounds of Appeal filed are sprawling (more than 30 in number), highly argumentative, and unintelligible. They do not specifically raise any grievance against the order of the CIT(A) confirming the addition on account of share capital/share premium.
It is well settled that under Rule 8 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, the grounds of appeal
must be concise, specific, and without narrative. The present appeal as filed is in total violation of Rule 8.
6. Further, the Tribunal’s jurisdiction under section 253 is confined to examining the correctness of orders passed by the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) under the Income-tax Act. Issues relating to constitutional validity, conspiracy, contempt of court, defamation, or damages are far beyond the scope of Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
7. The present filing does not identify any precise ground relating to the addition/disallowance sustained by the CIT(A). In Goldmine Commodities Pvt. Ltd. Vs. PCIT Assessment Year 2016-17 4 absence of clear, concise grounds, the appeal becomes incapable of adjudication.
In view of the above, we hold that the appeal filed by the assessee is defective and not maintainable in its present form. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
We further note that the Revenue’s appeal against the very same order of the CIT(A) has been dismissed by us on merits. Thus, apart from the assessee’s appeal being defective in form, it has also become infructuous in substance.