ITO, WD-2(1), SILIGURI, DARJEELING vs. M/S SARATHI REALTORS PVT. LTD., SILIGURI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1039/KOL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 February 2019AY 2012-20132 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh verification of the details concerning the share application money and premium from the share-subscribing companies. This was based on contentions regarding contrary findings on notice service and the interest of justice.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) added Rs. 2 crores received by the assessee as share capital and premium, stating the assessee failed to prove the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the investing companies. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, holding it not maintainable in the assessee's hands.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition on account of share capital and premium, and whether the matter should be remanded for fresh verification of investor details.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 133(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “C”, KOLKATA

Hearing: 23.01.2019Pronounced: 06.02.2019

ORDER

PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.

This appeal filed by the Revenue against the order dated 27.05.2015 passed by CIT(A), Siliguri u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) for AY 2012-13.

2.

The only issue is to be decided as to whether the CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition made on account of share capital and premium thereon in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3.

Heard both parties and perused the material available on record. The AO during the course of assessment proceedings found that the assessee received a total amount of Rs.2 crores from investing companies on account of share application and allotment. The AO requested the assessee to provide identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of such investing companies. But however, it is noted from the assessment order that the assessee failed to prove substantially identity and creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transactions thereby, AO added said amount to the total income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. In challenge before the CIT(A), it was submitted that the assessee cannot confirm the source of money of its investors. Considering the same, the CIT(A) held that (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2012-13) the addition in the hands of assessee is not maintainable but however, directed the AO to inform the AO’s of investing companies for necessary action. Before us, the contention of the Ld.AR is that there were contrary findings by the AO in respect of service of notices u/s 133(6) of the Act and thereby prayed to remand the matter to the AO for his fresh verification of the details in respect of investing companies. Ld.DR reported no objection in respect of such submissions. Taking into consideration the submissions of Ld.AR and Ld.DR and facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the AO for his fresh verification of details involving share application money and premium thereon all share subscribing companies. Thus, Ground raised

by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes.

5. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 06.02.2019.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →