DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MANAV TREXIM PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 834/KOL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 February 2024AY 2012-13Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial Member)2 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the Revenue's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal issued a corrigendum to correct a typographical error in its previous order. The corrected order states that the revenue's appeal is allowed.

What were the facts?

The revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order which reversed the AO's addition of Rs. 5,10,00,000/-. The addition was made on account of unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the treatment of unexplained cash credit and whether the CIT(A) correctly reversed the AO's addition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH: KOLKATA

Before: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

By virtue of application dated 6.01.2024 preferred by the revenue it was correctly pointed out that an inadvertent typographical error has occurred in AY 2012-13 in Para no.

3.

The sentence reads as “The only issue raised by the assessee is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) upholding the order of AO where the AO has made addition of Rs. 5,10,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act” however the correct sentence would be “The only issue raised by the revenue is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) reversing the order of AO where the AO has made addition of Rs. 5,10,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act.” It was also pointed out that the last sentence in para 7 was also wrong added and reads as “The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee without doing any further verification or given its finding on the issue” which is to be deleted. Hence this corrigendum is issued to modify the order accordingly. The impugned order is hereby corrected and para no. 3 and Para 7 shall be read as “3. The only issue raised by the revenue is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) reversing the order of AO where the AO has made addition of Rs. 5,10,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act”.

7.

The Ld. A.R vehemently submitted before us that in the remand proceedings, the AO has not carried out any further verification however reiterated

Assessment Year: 2012-13 Manav Trexim Pvt. Ltd. his opinion that the premium paid by share subscriber were not justified and stated that with the share capital may be treated as expenditure whereas the share premium may be treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act.”

Hence this corrigendum is issued to modify the order accordingly.

2.

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed.

Order is pronounced in the open court on 20th February, 2024

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →