Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “VIRTUAL COURT A” KOLKATA
Before: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara
O R D E R
PER S.S.Godara, Judicial Member:
- This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Kolkata’s order dated 30.05.2018 passed in case No.750/CIT(A)-1/Ramge-2/2015-16 involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Case file(s) perused.
The assessee’s sole substantive grievance raised in the instant appeal challenges correctness of both the lower authorities’ action treating its share capital / premium of ₹20 lakh involving of face-value of ₹2,00,000/- and premium of ₹18 lakhs; respectively as unexplained cash credits liable to be added u/s 68 of the Act.
Assessment Year 2012-13 Chandra Nirman Pvt. Ltd. Vs JCIT, Rang-2, Kol. Page 2 3. Learned counsel representing assessee vehemently contended during the course of hearing that both the lower authorities’ have erred in law and on facts in treating its share capital / premium in issue as lacking genuineness / creditworthiness. He seeks to highlight the fact that assessee had placed on record all the corresponding documentary evidence in the nature of audited balance-sheet(s), profit and loss account(s), copy of muster data as per official website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs relevant to the assessee as well as the share subscriber, Income Tax return filed for the impugned assessment year, bank statement and other similar document(s) in support of the impugned share application.
Mr. Jalan next took us to assessment order dated 28.03.2015 that the Assessing Officer had asked for the assessee’s director’s personal appearance only on 26.06.2015 for the first time and fixed the next hearing on 10.03.2015 followed by similar notice for appearance of the investor party on 16.03.2015. Learned counsel accordingly pleads in view of the said details that the concerned director had very well informed the Assessing Officer that he would not be able to come present since out of station. He therefore submits that the assessee had not been given ample opportunities as well to prove genuineness / creditworthiness of the impugned share application / premium. Lastly he prayed for deleting the impugned addition in view of the various judicial precedents as well as that such credits are no more unexplained since supported by the cogent supportive evidence.
Learned departmental representative has placed strong reliance on both the lower authorities making the impugned addition. His case is that mere filing of documentary evidence does not absolve the assessee from proving genuineness / creditworthiness of the investor party concerned.