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

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/-.

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:

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 juri ictional Assessing Officer. Assessment Year 2016-17

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 juri iction 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 juri iction.

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

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.

अपीलाथŎ / The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयुƅ / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयुƅ ) अपील ( / The CIT(Exemption)-Ahmedabad 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध , आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण , राजोकट/DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad, 6. गाडŊ फाईल /Guard file.