Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed its return of income at Rs.34,24,839/-, but the Assessing Officer, under section 143(3), determined the total income at Rs.70,26,830/- by adding Rs.36,01,990/- on account of disallowance of share application money. The assessee's appeal against this addition was dismissed by the CIT(A).
Held
The Tribunal upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 68, finding that the appellant failed to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share application money transactions. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was confirmed, and the appeal was dismissed, partly due to the assessee's failure to appear for hearings and remove registry defects.
Key Issues
Whether the addition of share application money under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act was justified, given the assessee's failure to establish the identity, creditworthiness of creditors, and genuineness of the transactions.
Sections Cited
Section 143(3), Section 68, Section 10
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH ‘A’, LUCKNOW
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA
has been filed by the assessee pertaining to assessment year 2016-17 against impugned appellate order dated 04/11/2019 passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short].
(B) The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee filed its return of income on 17/10/2016 declaring total income at Rs.34,24,839/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment and passed assessment order under section 143(3) on 17/12/2018 and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.70,26,830/- by making addition of Rs.36,01,990/- on account Assessment Year:2016-17 2 of disallowance of share application money. Being aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the learned CIT(A), who has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under:
Assessment Year:2016-17 Assessment Year:2016-17 Assessment Year:2016-17 Assessment Year:2016-17 Assessment Year:2016-17 Assessment Year:2016-17 Assessment Year:2016-17 Assessment Year:2016-17 10 (C) During the course of hearing, none was present on behalf of the assessee. In the past also the appeal was fixed for hearing on 06/06/2022,19/07/2022, 09/05/2023, 04/07/2023, 05/10/2023, 30/04/2024, 30/08/2024, 01/04/2025, 11/06/2025, 30/09/2025, 19/11/2025 and 08/01/2026 on which dates either the hearing was adjourned on the request of the assessee or there was no representation from the assessee’s side. On 08/01/2026 also, when the hearing was last fixed, none was present on behalf of assessee. In the absence of any representation from the side of the assessee, learned Departmental Representative for Revenue was heard, who relied on the orders of the authorities below. On careful perusal of the impugned order of the learned CIT(A), and other materials on record, no infirmity is found in it. No material has been presented from either side to persuade us to make any interference with or modification of the impugned order of learned CIT(A). Therefore, the impugned order of learned CIT(A) is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.
(C.1) In any case, the defect pointed out by the registry vide defect memo dated 21/04/2025 has not been removed by the assessee. Therefore, on Assessment Year:2016-17 11 this point also, the appeal of the assessee deserves to be dismissed in limine. The defect pointed out by Registry in the appeal filed by the assessee, is, that appeal fee has not been paid in correct head.
(D) In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
(Order pronounced in the open court on 13/01/2026)