DCIT,, GHAZIABAD vs. M/S MGI INFRACON PVT. LTD., (EARLIER M/S BIGMOON BUILDCON PVT. LTD.,), NEW DELHI
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition under section 68, finding no reason to interfere with the finding that the amount became an available source in the investor's hands once added there. Consequently, the Tribunal also confirmed the deletion of the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c), as the quantum addition was not sustained.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against the deletion of an addition of Rs. 11,35,40,000/- made under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for share premium money received by the assessee. The Assessing Officer had made the addition after the assessee company issued equity shares at a premium, which were subscribed by KDP Buildwell Pvt Ltd, a company under search proceedings. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting that the same addition was already made in the hands of the investor company.
What were the issues?
Whether the deletion of addition for share premium under Section 68 by CIT(A) was correct, and whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is maintainable after the deletion of quantum addition.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘E’ BENCH,
Before: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, & SHRI KUL BHARAT
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-
The above captioned two separate appeals by the Revenue are preferred against two separate orders of the CIT(A)-4, Kanpur dated 31.03.2017 pertaining to A.Y. 2012-13.
Both these appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee inspite of several notices.
We heard the ld. DR at length and have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below.
is an appeal against the deletion of addition of Rs. 11,35,40,000/- made u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act, for short] on account of share premium money.
While scrutinizing the return of income, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee company has issued 22,70,800 equity shares of Rs. 10/- each at a premium of Rs. 40/- per share and collected Rs. 2,27,08,000/- as face value of shares and Rs. 9,08,32,000/- on account of share premium, aggregating to Rs. 11,35,40,000/-.
The Assessing Officer found that the entire shares have been applied by KDP Buildwell Pvt Ltd, a company of KDP Group which group was covered under search and seizure proceedings. The assessee was asked to justify the share transaction in light of provisions of section 68 of the Act and on receiving no plausible reply, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 11,35,40,000/-.
Addition was challenged before the ld. CIT(A) and before the ld. CIT(A), additional evidences in the nature of confirmation of account by investor, share certificate issued, copy of ITR and computation of income of investor, audit report, balance sheet, profit and loss account of investor and bank statements of investor.
The ld. CIT(A) called a remand report from the Assessing Officer who did not object for the admission of additional evidence.
On the contrary, in the remand report, the Assessing Officer mentioned that the addition u/s 68 of the Act has been made in the case of KDP Buildwell Pvt Ltd., therefore, no addition is to be made on this ground in the case of the assessee u/s 153C /143(3) of the Act.
The ld. CIT(A) was of the opinion that since the addition has been made in the hands of the investor company KDP Buildwell Pvt Ltd, the same becomes available source in the hands of the investor to invest in the appellant company. Therefore, no addition is called for.
After giving thoughtful consideration to the afore-stated findings of the ld. CIT(A), which is based upon the remand report and proper appreciation of facts, we do not find any reason to interfere with it.
Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Since the quantum has been deleted, penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has no legs to stand. The findings of the ld. CIT(A) cannot be faulted with.
In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in and 3797/DEL/2023 are dismissed.
The order is pronounced in the open court on 13.02.2024.
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 →- M/S Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026