BHIKSU BARTER PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The assessee in the present case is a Company, which is engaged in the business of investment in shares and money lending. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by it on 11.01.2013 declaring total income of Rs.60,800/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the claim of the assessee of having received share capital and share premium amounts aggregating to Rs.3,50,85,000/- was examined by the Assessing Officer. In this regard, he issued notices under section 131 to the Directors of the shareholder companies, but the same

Assessment year: 2012-2013 Page 2 of 3 remained un-complied with. He also gave an opportunity to the assessee to explain the share capital and share premium amount representing cash credit in terms of section 68. The assessee, however, failed to comply with the same. The Assessing Officer, therefore, treated the share capital and share premium amounts aggregating to Rs.3,50,85,000/- as unexplained cash credit and added the same to the total income of the assessee under section 68 in the assessment completed under section 143(3) vide an order dated 02.03.2015.

Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3), an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and since there was no compliance on the part of the assessee to the notices issued by the ld. CIT(Appeals) fixing the said appeal for hearing from time to time, the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide his appellate order dated 15.02.2017 passed ex-parte. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.

We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. Besides raising the preliminary issue regarding the failure of the authorities below to afford proper and sufficient opportunity to the assessee to explain the amount of share capital and share premium in question in terms of section 68, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has also raised a material contention that the said amount of share capital and share premium was received by the assessee in the earlier years and not in the year under consideration. He has contended that the said amount to the extent received in the earlier years cannot be added to the total income of the assessee under section 68 in the year under consideration. The ld. D.R., on the other hand, has contended that this claim made by the ld. Counsel for the assessee for the first time before the Tribunal requires verification. He has contended that the Assessing Officer, therefore, should be given an opportunity to verify the same. We find merit in the contention of the ld. D.R. The impugned

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on May 29, 2018.