M/S. AKSHAYAKALPA FARMS AND FOODS PVT LTD,TIPTUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, TUMKUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's contention that supporting documents for the investor's capacity could not be produced earlier. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration after allowing the assessee to produce documents.
What were the facts?
The assessee company received subscription for Compulsorily Convertible Preference Shares (CCPS) and securities premium. The Assessing Officer treated a portion of this amount as unexplained credit under Section 68. The CIT(Appeals) confirmed the addition.
What were the issues?
Whether the subscription amount received by the assessee company for CCPS and securities premium constitutes unexplained credit under Section 68, and if the assessee was given sufficient opportunity to prove the genuineness of the transaction.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI & SMT. BEENA PILLAI
Per Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(Appeals)-7, Bengaluru dated 24.11.2017.
The assessee has raised the following grounds:-
“1. The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in passing the order as passed by him. The order passed is bad in law, and against the principles of natural justice is required to be quashed in toto. 2. The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in adding a sum of Rs. 3,57,143/- to the income of the appellant u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, such additions is against the available documentary evidence.
The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in not appreciating the fact that a subscription of share amounting to Rs. 3,57,143/- from a tax payer is genuine.
The appellant denies liability to pay interest. The interest being levied erroneously is to be deleted. 5. In view of the above and on other grounds to be adduced at the time of hearing, it is requested that the impugned order be quashed or atleast the addition made to income be deleted and interest levied be deleted.” 3. The appellant, a Company, filed the return of income on 28/11/2014 declaring nil income and current year loss of Rs. 83,06,772/-. The Company is engaged in business of production of organic Milk and Milk products. The income consists of Income from Business.
4. The return as filed was processed U/s. 143(1) of I.T. Act, 1961. Thereafter, the case was selected under CASS and notice u/s 143(2) dated 28-08-2015 was issued and served.
During the year the company issued 1000 compulsorily convertible preference shares (`CCPS") having face value of Rs. 14,240/- each at a premium of Rs. 10,760/-. During the year the CCPS were partly paid with face value of Rs. 5,696/- each at a premium of Rs. 4,304/-. The amount received on account of CCPS and securities premium have been received through normal banking channel and persons are assessed to tax and having valid Permanent Account Number [PAN]. During the assessment proceedings, the appellant submitted complete postal address of the investors from whom the securities premium amount was received.
The Assessing Officer completed the assessment by treating subscription amount of Rs. 3,57,143/- towards 35 CCPS from Mr. Ashirwad Agarwal as unexplained credits under section 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961. The subscription for Rs,3,57,143/- was made by Mr.Ashirwad Agarwal, who is assessed to tax under PAN : AAQPA0712P. Tax u/s 115BBE and interest u/s 234B are calculated accordingly and a demand of Rs 1,46,790/- has been raised.
Against this, the assessee went in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(A) confirmed the addition observing that the assessee has not provided any supporting evidence to the satisfaction of AO that the transaction was genuine one. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. The ld. AR submitted that before the lower authorities, the assessee could not produce supporting documents to substantiate the capacity of Ashirwad Agarwal to invest in assessee company. Now it is submitted that the assessee is having supporting document to substantiate the same and pleaded for an opportunity to produce the same before the AO. We agree with this contention of the ld. AR and accordingly the issue in dispute is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, after giving opportunity to the assessee and verification of documents to be produced before him.
In the result, the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Pronounced in the open court on this 23rd day of June, 2021.
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S. Devkinandan Traders vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Dixit Medical Agencies vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026