ADITYA PRINTS PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CRICLE-1(1)(1), SURAT
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal affirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68. The assessee failed to provide any evidence before the lower authorities or the Tribunal to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction.
What were the facts?
The assessee company received Rs. 1.30 crores as share capital and premium. The Assessing Officer made an addition under Section 68, holding that the assessee failed to prove the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the investor. The CIT(A) upheld this addition.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee proved the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the subscriber of share capital and premium to avoid addition under Section 68.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
�नधा�रती क� ओर से /Assessee by None राज�व क� ओर से /Revenue by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing 29.12.2022 उ�घोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of 29.12.2022 pronouncement Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-1 Surat [for short to as “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 16.11.2017 for the assessment year 2012-13, which in turn arises out of assessment order passed by Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity) on 31.03.2015. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeals:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in (A.Y 12-13) Aditya Prints Pvt.Ltd. holding that the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the company investing an amount of Rs.1,30,00,000/- in the subscription of the share capital of the appellant company is not established. Such findings are contrary and in complete disregard f the facts and are therefore prayed to be expunged.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) in making addition of Rs.1,30,00,000/- received as share capital during the yar to be unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the I.T. Act. The addition of Rs.1,30,00,000/- made is prayed to be deleted.
3. Your appellant craves liberty to add, alter, amend or delete any or all the grounds of appeal stated above.”
2. Brief facts of the case are that assessment in question of assessee was completed under section 143(3) on 31.03.20215. The Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order made addition of Rs.1.30 crores under section 68 of the Act by taking view that assessee failed to prove identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of such transaction of share premium and share capital, received during the year. On appeal before Ld. CIT(A), the action of Assessing Officer was upheld. The Ld. CIT(A) while upholding the addition held that assessee has received share capital and share premium from Country Financial Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. The assessee failed to provide to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of 2 (A.Y 12-13) Aditya Prints Pvt.Ltd. the transaction. The Ld. CIT(A) by referring various decisions upheld the addition made by Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Act. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal.
3. None appeared on behalf of assessee nor filed any adjournment application by assessee or its Authorized Representative today at the time of hearing. Despite service of notices of hearing, more than two occasions, on perusal of record shows that Ld. AR for the assessee appeared on several occasions and thereafter stopped appearing. On 18.08.2022, Ld. AR for the assessee filed an application for seeking adjournment on the ground that insolvency proceedings were initiated against the assessee by secured creditors and no order of Moratorium is filed thereafter. The assessee was not appearing. In such circumstances we left no option except to decide the appeal on the basis of material on record and on hearing the submissions of the learned senior departmental representative (Sr DR) of the revenue.
The ld SR for the revenue submits that the assessee has not discharged his onus before lower authorities in proving (A.Y 12-13) Aditya Prints Pvt.Ltd. the three ingredients. i.e. identity, creditworthy and genuineness of investor. Even before tribunal the assessee has not filed even single documents to discharge its onus in substantiating various grounds of appeal
5. We have considered the submissions of ld SR DR for the revenue and have gone through the orders of the lower authorities carefully. We find that the assessing officer made addition under section 68 of Rs. 1.30 Crore by taking view that the assessee received share premium and share capital but failed to prove failed to prove identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of such transaction of share premium and share capital, received during the year from Country Financial Consultancy Services Pvt. No evidence if filed either before ld CIT(A) or before the Tribunal about the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of such transaction of share premium and share capital. Thus, in absence of any explanation/ submissions in oral or in writing, or any evidence, we affirm the additions made by assessing officer under section 68 of Rs. 1.30 Crore. In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is dismissed.
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 →- Prabhudatta Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, OdishaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs. Joint Commissioner Of GST (Appeal), Territorial Range, BolangirOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Attitude Exim PVT. LTD., Rourkela vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S.Pradeep Kumar Mahapatra, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent Bhubaneswar-Iii Circle, CGST Range, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026