Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “B” KOLKATA
Before: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara
Shri Sandeep Sapra, Advocate & अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/By Appellant Shri Ashutosh Agarwal, CA Shri Amitava Bhattacharya, Addl-CIT-DR ��यथ� क� ओर से/By Respondent 04-06-2018 सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing 15-06-2018 घोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S.Godara, Judicial Member:- This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2009-10 arises against Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Kolkata’s order dated 02.12.2016, passed in case No.403/CIT(A)-3/W-9(3)/Kol/15-16, confirming Assessing Officer’s action adding its share capital / premium amount of ₹4,22,00,000/-, involving proceedings u/s. 144/263/147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
A.Y. 2009-10 M/s Ruchi Vintrade Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO Wd-9(3) Kol. Page 2 2. It emerges at the outset that the Assessing Officer had framed the assessment ex parte on 18.03.2015 adding the impugned share premium qua 1,68,800 units of equity shares having face value of 10/- each sold at a premium of ₹240/- per share. He recorded in assessment order that the assessee did not appear alongwith the relevant details so as to satisfy the three necessary conditions of identity, genuineness and creditworthiness thereof during the course of scrutiny.
The assessee preferred its appeal against the said addition. It chose to file voluminous additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rule, 1962 as well. The CIT(A) observes in para-4 that the said additional evidence does not deserve to be admitted since the Assessing Officer had granted it sufficient opportunities after issuing section 142(1) notice. He thereafter affirms the impugned addition after a detailed discussion doubting genuineness and creditworthiness thereof.