MAYANK INFOTRADE PVT. LTD.,HOWRAH vs. I.T.O.,WARD-13(3), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7/KOL/2020Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 October 2022AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal concurred with the lower authorities that the funds were received from shell companies operating in an organized manner. Consequently, the share capital and premium were treated as unexplained cash credits.

What were the facts?

The assessee issued shares at a premium, collecting a significant amount from five parties. During assessment and appellate proceedings, the assessee failed to provide any submissions or evidence to substantiate these transactions.

What were the issues?

Whether the share capital and premium received by the assessee were genuine and adequately explained, considering the failure to provide supporting evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH: KOLKATA

Before: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(KZ)& Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Per Shri Rajesh Kumar, AM:

1.

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Kolkata [hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] dated 21.10.2019 for the assessment year 2012-13.

2.

At the time of hearing, when the case was called for hearing today, neither the assessee nor his authorized representative appeared to attend the hearing nor any adjournment application was filed seeking adjournment. We observe from the file that notice issue to the assessee was returned unserved with remarks ‘not known on the

3.

We have heard Ld. D.R. and also perused the material on record including the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) and as well as AO. We observe that the assessee has issued shares at face value of Rs. 10/- each at a premium of 190 and thus collected Rs. 1,87,25,000/- from five parties. We note that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee has not filed any submissions before the AO and thus AO passed assessment order on the basis of information/details available before him by holding that transactions of share capital and share premium remained unexplained as the identities , creditworthiness of the investors and genuineness of the transactions could not be verified and finally added the same to the income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit. Similarly, before the Ld. CIT(A) also the assessee could not prove these transactions and its appeal was dismissed by the first appellate authority. Before us also , the assesse did not file any evidences to prove these transactions. Under these circumstances, we are in concurrence with the conclusion drawn by the Ld. CIT(A) that the money was received from shell companies which are operating under an organized manner in the market and accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed by upholding the order of Ld. CIT(A).

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order is pronounced in the open court on 19th October, 2022

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →