ITO, WD-2(1), SILIGURI, DARJEELING vs. M/S SARATHI REALTORS PVT. LTD., SILIGURI
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?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “C”, KOLKATA
ORDER
PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
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.
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.
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
- 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 →- 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
- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026