SHREEJEE APTEX P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 707/DEL/2022Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 March 2023AY 2010-115 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had requested the Assessing Officer to issue summons to the concerned entities, and that these entities were still active. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to conduct necessary inquiry with the concerned entities.

What were the facts?

The assessee received share capital of Rs. 23,79,000 from two companies. The Assessing Officer added this amount to the assessee's income as unexplained cash credit because the assessee could not furnish the bank statements of the concerned entities.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of share capital as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 is justified when the assessee requested the AO to summon the concerned entities and they are still active.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY

For Appellant: Shri Sachin Jain, CA
For Respondent: Shri D.K. Shrivastav, Sr. DR
Hearing: 27.03.2023Pronounced: 31.03.2023

per the status available in Ministry of Corporate Affair’s record. He submitted, the assessee had allotted shares to the concerned entities.

1.

Thus, he submitted, a direction may be issued to the Assessing Officer to conduct necessary inquiry with the concerned entities.

6.

Learned Departmental Representative submitted, issue can be restored back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

7.

I have considered rival submissions and perused the material available on record.

8.

Undisputedly, the assessee had received aggregate amount of Rs.23,79,000 towards investment in share capital from M/s. Nepostel India Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Chinu Press & Prakash Pvt. Ltd. It is observed from Form 23 filed by the assessee before the Registrar of Companies (ROC), the assessee had issued shares to M/s. Nepostel India Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Chinu Press & Prakash Pvt. Ltd. during the financial year 2010-11. Further, from the MCA data filed in the paper books, it is observed that the status of these companies have been shown as active as on 31.03.2022, the balance sheet date. It is further observed, in course of assessment proceedings itself, the assessee had requested the Assessing Officer to issue summons under Section 131 of the Act to the parties as they were not cooperating with the assessee. It appears, the Assessing Officer has neither acceded to the request of the assessee nor has himself conducted, even, preliminary inquiry by issuing notice under Section 133(6) of the Act. Merely because, the assessee was unable to produce the bank statements of M/s. Nepostel India Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Chinu Press & Prakash Pvt. Ltd., for that reasoning alone, the share capital cannot be added under Section 68 of the Act. Since, the departmental authorities, particularly, the Assessing Officer have failed to carry out the necessary inquiry, I deem it appropriate to restore the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination after conducting necessary inquiry with M/s.

Nepostel India Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Chinu Press & Prakash Pvt. Ltd. with regard to the investments made in share capital.

9.

Needless to mention, before deciding the issue the Assessing Officer must afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

10.

Grounds are allowed for statistical purposes.

11.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on31st March, 2023.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →