M/S. PEVONIA HOTELS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 8(3), KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal decided to allow the assessee one more opportunity to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the share subscribers by producing their directors before the AO. The issue is restored to the AO for fresh verification.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed share capital/premium of ₹1,10,00,000/- from twelve parties. Both the AO and CIT(A) treated this as unexplained cash credits, deeming it neither genuine nor creditworthy.
What were the issues?
Whether the share capital/premium raised by the assessee was genuine and creditworthy, and if adequate attempts were made by the AO to verify the same.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Sumati Dayal v. CIT1,967 citing214 ITR 801 · 1995 · SC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Durga Prasad More1,579 citing82 ITR 540 · 1971 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “A”, KOLKATA
Before: SH. S.S.GODARA & DR. A.L. SAINI
ORDER
PER SH. S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER This assessee’s appeal for AY 2012-13 arises against the order dated 05.09.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Kolkata [in short “CIT(A)”] in Appeal No.436/CIT(A)-3/Ward-8(3)/15-16/Kol in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (in short the “Act”). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
The assessee's sole substantive grievance raised in the instant appeal seeks to reverse both the lower authorities' action treating its share capital/premium amounting to ₹1,10,00,000/- as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act. There is no dispute about the basic fact that the assessee claimed to have raised the impugned share capital premium from total twelve parties. The AO as well as the CIT(A) are of the view that the same are Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Pevonia Hotels Pvt. Ltd. neither genuine nor creditworthy so as to justify the same. The assessee's only case before us during the course of hearing is that it is ready to get all the investor entities verified by producing their directors before the AO in one more innings.
Ld. DR on the other hand has submitted that both the lower authorities have rightly added the impugned share capital/premium as unexplained cash credits since lacking genuineness/creditworthiness as per hon'ble apex court's landmark decision in CIT vs. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) and Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC) i.e. relevant evidence has been considered by removing blinkers going by human probability; respectively. He fails to dispute that neither of the lower authorities' order indicates as to whether adequate attempts were made to verify the impugned share capital/premium from the investor parties’ side during scrutiny. Be it as it may, the assessee's letter dated 15.01.2020 submitted during the course of hearing undertakes to produce all the share subscriber companies before the AO. We keep in mind all the foregoing facts and circumstances and are of the view that larger interest of justice would be met in case the assessee is afforded one more innings to produce genuineness/creditworthiness of the twelve companies through their directors at its own risk & responsibility. The instant sole issue of unexplained cash credits addition stands restored to the AO for his fresh factual verification therefore.
Before parting, it is noted that the order is being pronounced after ninety days of hearing. However, taking note of the extraordinary situation Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Pevonia Hotels Pvt. Ltd. in the light of the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown, the foregoing period needs to be excluded. For coming to such a conclusion, we rely upon the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. JSW Limited in & 6103/Mum/2018, Assessment Year 2013-14, order dated 14th May, 2020.
This assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 10.06.2020.
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 →- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026