RPS FARMS & EXPORTS (P) LTD,NAMAKKAL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, NAMAKKAL
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence as relevant to the appeal. However, since the evidence required examination, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
What were the facts?
The assessee received Rs. 67 lakhs as share application money in cash from four individuals. The Assessing Officer treated this as unexplained credit under Section 68, and the CIT(A) confirmed this. The assessee filed additional evidence with the ITAT, including returns and confirmation letters of the subscribers.
What were the issues?
Whether the share application money received in cash is an unexplained credit. Whether additional evidence filed before the ITAT should be admitted and considered.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN
आदेश / O R D E R
PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
The assessee filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Salem in Appeal No.278/2015-16 dated 21.02.2019 for the assessment year 2013-14.
M/s. R P S Farms & Exports (P) Ltd., the assessee, filed additional evidences consisting of returns of income, confirmation letters, etc., under Rule 29 of ITAT Rules, 1963, submitting that during the course of assessment as well as appeal proceedings, the assessee could not produce the returns of income of the person who subscribed for shares of the company and also confirmation letters of the said persons to prove the sources of those persons. Since, these documents are relevant for deciding the issue and non-admission of them would put the assessee to great hardship and irreparable loss and non-filing of these documents before the lower authorities are not willful or wanton, it was pleaded that these documents may be admitted as additional evidences and the appeal be allowed to be decided on merits.
We heard the rival submissions and admitted the additional evidences, as they are integral to the issues on appeal.
The ld.AR pleaded that the assessee company received Rs.67 lakhs, in cash from four persons viz., S/Shri/Mrs. S. Sellammal, P. Nallappan, S. Sasikumar and S. Gomathi towards share application money between 17.01.2013 and 14.03.2013. Out of which, Rs.28 lakhs was credited in the balance sheet as “Share application money” and Rs.38,30,000/- under the head “Other current liabilities”. They were repaid to those persons during the assessment year 2014-15 through banking channel. While completing the assessment, the AO treated the share application money as unexplained credit U/s.68 and on appeal, the ld.CIT(A) confirmed the same. The ld.AR pleaded that on basis of copies of returns of income and confirmation letters filed by the persons, the impugned appeal may be allowed. Per contra, the ld.DR supported the orders of the lower authorities.
We heard the rival submissions. Since the additional evidences are admitted which requires examination, we deem it fit to remit these impugned issues back to the AO for a fresh examination. The assessee shall lay all materials in support of its contention before the Assessing Officer and comply with the requirements of the Assessing Officer in accordance with law. The Assessing Officer is free to conduct appropriate enquiry as deemed fit, however, he shall furnish due opportunity to the assessee on the materials etc., to be used against the assessee and on due consideration of the assessee’s clarification / explanation shall pass the order in accordance with law.
In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the court on the 1st October, 2019 at Chennai.
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 →- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- Anisha Busa vs. Sibar Institute Of Dental SciencesAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S. Sikka Motors PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shri Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026