SUNVIEW REALTY PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. I.T.O.,WARD-9(4), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 282/KOL/2020Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 May 2022AY 2012-132 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal. The share capital raised by the assessee was considered unproved due to lack of supporting evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee company raised share capital of Rs. 44,04,00,000/-. The assessee failed to provide any evidence to prove the identity, creditworthiness of investors, or genuineness of the transactions. The assessee also remained absent during the appeal proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether the share capital raised by the assessee constitutes an unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the absence of sufficient 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, “A” BENCH: KOLKATA

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

Hearing: 20.04.2022Pronounced: 09.05.2022

ORDER Per Shri Rajesh Kumar, AM:

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-18, Kolkata [hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] dated 05.04.2018 for the assessment year 2012-13.

2.

The assessee has raised various grounds challenging the confirmation of addition of Rs. 44,04,00,000/- by Ld. CIT(A) as made by the AO on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). This common issue in all the grounds taken by the assessee.

4.

At the time of hearing when the case was called up for hearing, neither assessee nor its authorized representative was present before the Bench to attend the hearing nor any adjournment application was filed seeking adjournment of the case. We observe from the file that the counsel of the assessee is not appearing despite being through mail as well as telephonically. We therefore are deciding this appeal after considering the merits of the case and hearing the Ld. D.R.

5.

We have heard the Ld. D.R and perused the material on record. We observe that the assessee has not filed any documents before the AO ,ld CIT(A) ands also Sunview Realty Pvt. Ltd. before us. We even observed from the impugned appellate order , Ld. CIT(A) decided the appeal ex-parte as the assessee has failed to turn up on the date of hearing despite granting fair opportunity to the assessee to present its case. Under these circumstances we have to decide the appeal on the basis of materials available before us. We have gone through the facts and tried to understand the issue with the assistance of ld DR and find that the assessee has raised share capital to the tune of Rs. 44,04,00,000/-. We note that the assessee has not filed any evidences to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the investors as well as the genuineness of the transactions and there is no materials before us to take a contrary view. Under these facts and circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the decision of the ld CIT(A) as the share capital raised by the assessee remained unproved. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee is dismissed by upholding the order of Ld. CIT(A).

6.

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

Order is pronounced in the open court on 9th May, 2022

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →