M/S. DADHEECH HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-7(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to establish the genuineness of the transactions. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee company received share capital and premium amounting to Rs. 1.21 crores. The Assessing Officer treated this as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 as the company failed to produce the share subscribers and supporting documents.
What were the issues?
Whether the share capital and premium received by the assessee were unexplained cash credits. Whether the assessee was afforded sufficient opportunity to prove the genuineness of the transactions.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(KZ & HZ) & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara
Per Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-President (Kolkata Zone):- This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Kolkata dated 01.08.2017 and the solitary issue involved therein relates to the addition of Rs.1.21 crores made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) by treating the share capital and share premium received by the assessee during the year under consideration as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The assessee in the present case is a Company, which is engaged in the business of trading in furniture. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by it on 15.09.2012 declaring total income at ‘NIL’. During the course of assessment proceedings, the claim of the assessee of having received share capital and share premium amount Assessment Year: 2012-2013 M/s. Dadheech Holdings Pvt. Limited aggregating to Rs.1.21 crores was examined by the Assessing Officer. During the course of the said examination, summons under section 131 was issued by the Assessing Officer requiring the Director of the assessee-company to appear before him in person and also to produce all the share subscribers along with the relevant documentary evidence to establish their identity and creditworthiness as well as the genuineness of their relevant transactions. Although the Director of the assessee- company appeared before the Assessing Officer in response to summons under section 131, he could not produce the share subscribers along with their relevant documentary evidence for the verification of the Assessing Officer. Keeping in view this failure of the assessee, the Assessing Officer treated the entire share capital and share premium amount aggregating to Rs.1.21 crores as unexplained cash credit and addition to that extent was made by him to the total income of the assessee under section 68 in the assessment completed under section 143(3) vide an order dated 30.03.2015.
Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3), an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals). During the course of appellate proceedings, a paper book was filed by the assessee containing the documentary evidence, which was filed before the Assessing Officer in order to explain the relevant cash credits representing receipt of share capital and share premium amount in terms of section 68. The ld. CIT(Appeals), however, did not accept the same and proceeded to confirm the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 by treating the share capital and share premium amount aggregating to Rs.1.21 crores as unexplained cash credit by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Rajmandir Estates Pvt. Limited –vs.- PCIT, Kolkata. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.
Assessment Year: 2012-2013 M/s. Dadheech Holdings Pvt. Limited
We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. The preliminary issue raised by the ld. Counsel for the assessee is that no proper and sufficient opportunity was afforded either by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings or even before the ld. CIT(Appeals) during the appellate proceedings to explain the relevant cash credits representing share capital and share premium amount aggregating to Rs.1.21 crores in terms of section 68 by establishing the identity and creditworthiness of the concerned share subscribers as well as the genuineness of the relevant transactions. He has submitted that the Assessing Officer required the assessee to produce the concerned share subscribers along with the documentary evidence for verification, but never issued any summons under section 131 directly to the said share subscribers for appearing before him for examination. He submitted that even the ld. CIT(Appeals) did not appreciate the documentary evidence placed on record by the assessee to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the concerned creditors as well as the genuineness of the relevant transactions and proceeded to confirm made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 by simply relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Rajmandir Estates Pvt. Limited (supra), which was rendered in the context of the order passed by the ld. CIT under section 263. He has submitted that the assessee is in a position to produce the concerned share subscribers along with the relevant documentary evidence for verification before the Assessing Officer and urged that an opportunity may be given to the assessee to do so by sending the matter back to Assessing Officer. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to accept this contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee. Even the ld. D.R. has not raised any objection for sending the matter back to the Assessing Officer. We accordingly set aside the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) on the issue under consideration and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding the same afresh after giving one more Assessment Year: 2012-2013 M/s. Dadheech Holdings Pvt. Limited opportunity to the assessee to produce the concerned share subscribers along with the relevant documentary evidence for verification.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on October 23, 2019.
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
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026