M/S BALAKA VINIMOY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(4),KOLKATA, KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) had complied with the revision directions to examine the genuineness and source of share capital through independent inquiries. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal concerns the addition of ₹13,94,00,000/- as unexplained cash credits on account of share application/premium. The lower authorities affirmed the Assessing Officer's action, partly due to the assessee's ex parte appearance before the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether the share application/premium amount was correctly treated as unexplained cash credits without proper independent inquiry as per revision directions.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “A” KOLKATA
Before: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini
आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S.Godara, Judicial Member:- This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2008-09 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6 Kolkata/s order dated 09.03.2016 passed in case No.245/CIT(A)-6/Kol/2015-16, involving proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
The assessee’s sole substantive grievance canvassed in the instant appeal challenges correctness of both the lower authorities’ action M/s Balaka Vinimoy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO Wd-5(4), Kol. Page 2 treating its share application / premium amount of ₹13,94,00,000/- as unexplained cash credits added u/s 68 of the Act. it emerges at the outset that the CIT(A)’s lower appellate order has been passed ex parte whilst affirming the Assessing Officer’s action making the addition in issue. The impugned proceedings appear to have arisen from the CIT’s revision directions dated 28.03.2013 revising the earlier regular assessment framed by the Assessing Officer on 30.04.2010 determining total income at ₹26,340/- u/s. 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act.
Learned departmental representative vehemently contended during the course of hearing that the assessee has availed accommodation entries from the investor parties which have not put in appearance before lower authorities and therefore, the impugned share application / premium amount has rightly been added as unexplained cash credits. He invited our attention to the Assessing Officer’s consequential assessment order dated 26.03.2014 to this effect. It is further submitted that the assessee had also not put in appearance before the CIT(A) despite numerous opportunities. The assessee’s case on the other hand is that the CIT’s direction issued u/s. 263 of the Act revising the earlier assessment had made it clear that the Assessing Officer had to examine genuineness and source of share capital; not on test check basis but in respect of all shareholders by conducting independent enquiries not through the taxpayer. We find that neither of the lower authority has complied with the said clinching aspect of the issue despite the fact that that the assessee had very well filed relevant documentary evidence raised from the very beginning. The Assessing Officer’s consequential assessment order does not take into consideration the same whilst making the impugned addition. We therefore deem it appropriate to restore the instant sole issue back to the M/s Balaka Vinimoy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO Wd-5(4), Kol. Page 3 Assessing Officer for afresh de novo assessment as per law in terms with CIT’s original revision directions (supra).
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 →- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- J.M.Swamy vs. Government Of INDIAKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Acc LTD. vs. Secy.Industries Deptt.Orissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Kumaran Transports (Tuticorin) Private Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner Madras · 16 Oct 2026