Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “D” KOLKATA
Before: Shri P.M.Jagtap & Shri S.S.Godara
आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S.Godara, Judicial Member:- This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2007-08 calls into question correctness of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, Kolkata’s ex parte order dated 02.05.2017, passed in case No.143/CIT(A)-23/W-6(1)/16-17, upholding the Assessing Officer’s action adding its share capital of ₹104,31,70,000/- to be unexplained u/s 68 in assessment order dated 20.03.2015, involving proceedings u/s 144/263/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
No. 1743/Kol/2017 A.Y. 2007-08 M/ss Cemfil Enterprises Ltd. Vs. ITO Wd-6(1), Kol. Page 2 2. We notice at the outset that both the lower authorities have added assessee’s share capital of ₹104,31,70,000/- received in the relevant previous year to be unexplained on account of its alleged failure in proving identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the investors concerned. The Assessing Officer had earlier framed the re-assessment in question on 07.05.201 assessing assessee’s total taxable income at ₹1,21,521/- against the returned income of ₹96,051/-. The CIT exercised his revision jurisdiction vested u/s. 263 of the Act thereafter and issued directions dated 28.03.2013 to the Assessing Officer for framing the above assessment afresh after carrying out through detailed enquiries of the share application money concerned. He accordingly treated the earlier assessment to be lacking necessary enquiries to be a fit case for exercising revision jurisdiction as the same was erroneous causing prejudice to the interest of the Revenue.
We notice that the Assessing Officer thereafter took up consequential proceedings. He issued section 131 summons to both assessee as well as all the investor parties concerned. He alleged in assessment order dated 20.03.2014 that none of them appeared so as to satisfy the relevant parameters of identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the share premium @ 990/- per share in issue. He therefore treated the above sum to be unexplained as well as its own money introduced in the garb of share capital including very hefty premium thereupon. Suffice to say, the CIT(A) has upheld the same in his lower appellate order passed ex parte.
Both the learned counsel reiterate their respective stands against and in support of impugned unexplained cash credits addition in the nature of share capital / premium. Learned Departmental Representative vehemently contends that assessee had received the above premium as a device for ploughing back its own money through very exorbitant premium @ 990/- per share. He highlights that the Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) have finalized ex parte proceedings in the event of assessee not filing any details at all in support. We find no reason to concur with Revenue’s instant arguments. It emerges first of all from page 1 to 3 that the assessee had changed its address as per the Ministry of Corporate Affairs details. Coupled with this, it emerges that assessee as well its investors had very well responded to section 133(6) notice by filing their respective bank statements, balance-sheet, profit and loss