PARAMA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,DURGAPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), DURGAPUR
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM & SHRIPRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM
Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:
This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 15.12.2021 for the AY 2012-13.
At the outset, we observe that there is a delay of 670 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. We observe from the condonation petition and affidavit filed by the assessee that the assessee filed adjournment letters on 29.01.2021, seeking the adjournment of the hearing to some other date. Thereafter, the assessee did not receive any communication. Later on it was found that the appeal has already been disposed of by ld CIT(A) by passing order dated 15.12.2021, without giving any opportunity to the assessee. We note
The only issue raised by the assessee is against the confirmation of addition of ₹78,26,714/- by the ld. CIT (A) as made by the ld. AO on account of share application money received by the assessee.
3.1. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 27.09.2012, declaring total income of ₹12,03,650/-, which was selected for scrutiny under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS). The statutory notices along with questionnaire were issued and also replied by the assessee from time to time. The ld. AO noted that the assessee has received share application money of ₹78,26,714/- during the year.v The submissions and evidences furnished by the assessee did not find favour with the AO and the ld. AO finally made the addition of ₹78,26,714/- on account of share application money received during the year in the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 31.03.2015.
3.2. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) also dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
3.3. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the assessee has received the share application money from the sister concern. We note that the share application money pending for allotment on 31.03.2011, was
“9. Coming to the justification of share premium, it is noted that, the Director of the assessee had given the explanation regarding the same when he was examined u/s 131 of the Act. We also note that,the year involved is assessment year 2012-13 and the proviso to section 68 of the Act introduced by Finance Act, 2012, is prospective and is applicable from 01.04.2013 effective from A.Y. 2013-14. We observe that, the amendment to Section 68 by inserting proviso is not retrospective and is applicable prospectively as has been held by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P) Ltd. delivered in Income Tax Appeal No.1613 of 2014, dated 20.03.2017, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held as under :- "We find that the proviso to section 68 of the Act has been introduced by the Finance Act 2012 with effect from 1st April, 2013. Thus, it would be effective only from the Assessment Year 2013-14 onwards and not for the subject Assessment Year. In fact, before the Tribunal, it was not even the case of the Revenue that Section 68 of the Act as in force during the subject years has to be read/understood as though the proviso added subsequently effective only
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 26.02.2026.
Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY) (RAJESH KUMAR) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 26.02.2026 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS
Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT DR, ITAT, 4. 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, True Copy//
Sr. Private Secretary/ Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata
