CIT v. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd.

397 ITR 136High Court2017#402 most cited

What is CIT v. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

Mere non-compliance with summons issued under Section 131 does not automatically disprove a transaction, and the Assessing Officer cannot disregard other documentary evidence furnished by the assessee when making additions under Section 68.

222

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd. · Orchid Industries · Section 68 · Section 131 · share application money · cash credit · onus of proof · burden of proof · summon non-compliance · documentary evidence · genuineness of transaction · existence of creditor

Also reported as

88 Taxmann.com 502

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 131Section 148Section 69CSection 153A

Issues it is cited on

source of sourcecreditworthiness of the creditorsummons under section 131onus of proofsection 131(1)share application moneyshare capital and share premiumpermanent account numbersection 158bbshell companyaddition u/s 68genuineness of the transaction

Judgments citing CIT v. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Snr Electronics Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 24(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 937/DEL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Deepti Chandola, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 292CSection 68Section 69C

…CIT Vs. Laxman Industrial Resources Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 397 ITR 106, CIT Vs. Rakam Money Matter Pvt. Ltd. ITA NO. 778 of 2015, CIT vs. Divine Leasing and Finance Ltd. General Exports and Credits Ltd. (2008) 299 ITR 268, CIT Vs. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 397 ITR 136. 14. That the addition cannot be sustained on the basis of doubt and should be deleted as the same is based on surmises and conjectures.” 3. All the grounds have been considered. Unexplained Cash Credit & Commission: 4. We have examined the record before us. We have gone through the adjudication of the ld. CIT(A) which is as under: “As it is cle…

Vedic Foundation Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 26(2), New Delhi

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4550/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Ms.Astha Chandra[Assessment Year : 2007-08] Vedic Foundation Pvt.Ltd., Vs Ito, 43-B, Ff, Dilshad Garden, Ward-26(2), New Delhi-110093. New Delhi. Pan-Aaaci8590C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Gaurav Kabra, Ca Respondent By Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 21.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28.02.2024 Order Per N.K.Billaiya, Am : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Preferred Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A)- 31, New Delhi Dated 08.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2007-08. The Grievances Of The Assessee Read As Under:-

Section 147Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “F” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K.BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & MS.ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2007-08] Vedic Foundation Pvt.Ltd., vs ITO, 43-B, FF, Dilshad Garden, Ward-26(2), New Delhi-110093. New Delhi. PAN-AAACI8590C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri Gaurav Kabra, CA Respondent by Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 21.02.2024 Date of Pronouncement 28.02.2024 ORDER PER N.K.BILLAIYA, AM : This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of Ld.CIT(A)- 31, New Delhi dated 08.03.2019 for the Assessment Year 2007-08. The gri…

Reliance Corporation, Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT Central Circle - 1, Thane

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2725/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail (Jm)

Section 147Section 68

…also retracted the addition made by the authorities below is devoid of cogent material. In this regard we note that in similar circumstances honourable Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 1433 of 2014 dated 5.7.2017)(397 ITR 136) held as under :- “The Assessing Officer added Rs.95 lakhs as income under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act only on the ground that the parties to whom the share certificates were issued and who had paid the share money had not appeared before the Assessing Officer and the summons could not be served on the addresses given as they were not trace…

Reliance Corporation, Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT Central Circle - 1, Thane

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2724/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail (Jm)

Section 147Section 68

…also retracted the addition made by the authorities below is devoid of cogent material. In this regard we note that in similar circumstances honourable Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 1433 of 2014 dated 5.7.2017)(397 ITR 136) held as under :- “The Assessing Officer added Rs.95 lakhs as income under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act only on the ground that the parties to whom the share certificates were issued and who had paid the share money had not appeared before the Assessing Officer and the summons could not be served on the addresses given as they were not trace…

Reliance Corporation, Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT, Central Circle - 1, Thane

ITA 2723/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail (Jm)

Section 147Section 68

…also retracted the addition made by the authorities below is devoid of cogent material. In this regard we note that in similar circumstances honourable Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 1433 of 2014 dated 5.7.2017)(397 ITR 136) held as under :- “The Assessing Officer added Rs.95 lakhs as income under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act only on the ground that the parties to whom the share certificates were issued and who had paid the share money had not appeared before the Assessing Officer and the summons could not be served on the addresses given as they were not traced…

Vedic Foundation Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-26(2), New Delhi

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 9170/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmavedic Foundation Private Limited, Vs. Ito, Ward 26 (2), 43-B, 1St Floor, Dilshad Garden, New Delhi. Delhi – 110 093. (Pan : Aaaci8590C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Joshi, Ca Revenue By : Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2024 Date Of Order : 25.01.2024

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133Section 143Section 147Section 68Section 69C

…2013-14, hence source of source examination is not applicable here. Further, ld. Counsel of the assessee relied upon several case laws as under :- (i) Pr. CIT vs. Laxman Industrial Resources Ltd. 397 ITR 106 (Delhi); (ii) CIT vs. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 136 (Bombay); (iii) CIT vs. Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd. 361 ITR 220 (Delhi); (iv) Shiv Dhoot Pearls 237 taxman 104 (Delhi); (v) Dwarkadhis Investment P. Ltd. 330 ITR 298 (Delhi); (vi) CIT vs. Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd. 216 CTR 195 (SC), 7. Per contra, ld. DR for the Revenue relied upon the orders of the authorities below. He submitted that assess…

Autumn Builders Limited., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-1(1), Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 883/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 131Section 142(1)

…ration Ltd. in [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC) 2. DCIT vs. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360(Guj) 3.Crystal Networks (P)Ltd vs CIT reported in 353 ITR 171 (C 4. ITO Vs M/s Cygnus Developers India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 282/Kol/2012) 5. CIT Vs Orchid Industries (P) Ltd 397 ITR 136 (Bom) 4 I.T.A. No.883/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Autumn Builders Ltd. Finally the ld AR prayed before the bench that the order of ld CIT(A) may be set aside and the AO may be directed to delete the addition. 7. The Ld. D.R ,on the other hand, relied on the orders of authorities below by submitting that the assessee has failed to prove id…

Gallantt Ispat Ltd., Gorakhpur vs. Dy./A.C.I.T. (Central Wing), Varanasi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 24/VNS/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi21 Nov 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amit Shukla (Jm)

Section 148Section 245D(4)Section 68

…gly, we are of the view that the AO was not justified in making the addition on the basis of investigation report by disregarding evidences furnished by the assessee. 9. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held in the case of CIT vs. Orchid Industries (P) Ltd (397 ITR 136)(Bom) that the addition u/s 68 could not be made, once the assessee had produced the documents to prove the cash credits. Accordingly, we are of the view that the Ld CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.50.00 lakhs made by the AO. 6 Gallantt Ispat Ltd. 10. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) and direct t…

Ivy Buildreal (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-6(2), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 857/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Sri Rajesh Kumar

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

…has not been established. For the reasons given above we uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the revenue.” 6.2. Similar ratio has been laid down by the Hon’ble Mumbai High Court in the case of CIT Vs Orchid Industries (P) Ltd. reported in 397 ITR 136 (Bom) by holding that provisions of section 68 of the Page 6 of 8 I.T.A. No.: 857/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ivy Build Real Pvt. Ltd. Act cannot be invoked for the reasons that the person has not appeared before the AO where the assessee had produced on records documents to establish genuineness of the party such as PAN, financial and ban…

Orthy Impex (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-14(3), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 855/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Sri Rajesh Kumar

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 68

…has not been established. For the reasons given above we uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the revenue.” 6.3. Similar ratio has been laid down by the Hon’ble Mumbai High Court in the case of CIT Vs Orchid Industries (P) Ltd. reported in 397 ITR 136 (Bom) by holding that provisions of section 68 of the Act cannot be invoked for the reasons that the person has not appeared before the AO where the assessee had produced on records documents to establish genuineness of the party such as Page 8 of 10 I.T.A. No.: 855/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Orthy Impex Pvt. Ltd. PAN, financial and bank…

Sng Dealers Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-6(1), Kol, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 656/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 131Section 147Section 68

…ort from following decisions CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Ltd. in [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC), Crystal Networks (P) Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 353 ITR 171 (Cal), ITO vs. M/s Cygnus Developers India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 282/Kol/2012) and CIT Vs Orchid Industries (P) Ltd. 397 ITR 136 (Bom). The decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Orissa Corporation Ltd. (supra) has held as under: “That in this case the respondent had given the names and addresses of the alleged creditors. It was in the knowledge of the Revenue that the said creditors were income-tax assessees. Their index numbers were in the file of the Revenue…

Barcelona Mercantile Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Ward 12(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2346/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay N. KapadiaaFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68

…uthorities in catena of judicial pronouncements. The said decision has been followed by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure Private Limited [80 Taxmann.com 272] & subsequently in CIT Vs. Orchid Industries Private Limited [88 Taxmann.com 502]. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court followed the said decision in Pr. CIT V/s Adamine Construction Pvt. Ltd. [107 Taxmann.com 84] against which revenue’s Special Leave petition was dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court which is reported at Barcelona Mercantile Company Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.2346/Mum./2023 107 Taxmann.com 85. Similar is the position of d…

M/S. Prompt Barter Private Limited., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-8(3), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 806/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 68

…he information sought by the AO in the summons issued u/s. 131 of the Act were duly complied. In defense of his argument he relied on the following decisions: (i) CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC); (ii) CIT Vs. Orchid Industries Ltd. 397 ITR 136 (Bom); (iii) Crystal Networks Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 353 ITR 171 (Kol); (iv) ITO Vs. M/s. Cygnus Developers India Pvt. Ltd.(ITA No. 282/Kol/2012) and 3 Prompt Barter Pvt. Ltd., AY 2012-13 (v) Joy Consolidated Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITA No. 547/Kol/2020. 5. The Ld. D.R strongly controverted and opposed the arguments as put forth by the Ld. A.R by submittin…

M/S. Delighted Holdings (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. Dcir, Cir-8(2), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 626/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 68

…t any defect or deficiency or have not carried out any investigation on these evidences. In defense of his argument, Ld. AR relied on the following decisions: (i) CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC); (ii) CIT Vs. Orchid Industries Ltd. 397 ITR 136 (Bom); (iii) Crystal Networks Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 353 ITR 171 (Kol); (iv) ITO Vs. M/s. Cygnus Developers India Pvt. Ltd.(ITA No. 282/Kol/2012) and (v) Joy Consolidated Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITA No. 547/Kol/2020. M/s. Delighted Holdings Pvt. Ltd., AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14 6. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, strongly relied on the orders of authorities bel…

M/S. Delighted Holdings (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. Dcir, Cir-8(2), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 625/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 68

…t any defect or deficiency or have not carried out any investigation on these evidences. In defense of his argument, Ld. AR relied on the following decisions: (i) CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC); (ii) CIT Vs. Orchid Industries Ltd. 397 ITR 136 (Bom); (iii) Crystal Networks Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 353 ITR 171 (Kol); (iv) ITO Vs. M/s. Cygnus Developers India Pvt. Ltd.(ITA No. 282/Kol/2012) and (v) Joy Consolidated Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITA No. 547/Kol/2020. M/s. Delighted Holdings Pvt. Ltd., AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14 6. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, strongly relied on the orders of authorities bel…

M/S. Bhagwati Foods Pvt. Ltd. (for the Merged Company Manis Baking Solutions Pvt. Ltd.), Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in IT(SS)A No

ITA 463/KOL/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Aug 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarmai.T.(S.S.)A. Nos.: 55, 56, 57, 58, 59 & 463/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Bhagwati Foods Pvt. Ltd. (For The Merged Company Manis Baking Solutions Pvt. Ltd.)......……………………………Appellant [Pan: Aadcm 6255 F] Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1), Kolkata.....................................Respondent Appearances By: Assessee Represented By – Sh. S.M. Surana, Adv. Department Represented By – Sh. Sunil Kr. Agarwala, Cit, D/R. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 1St, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 31St, 2023 Order Per Rajesh Kumar: The Captioned Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Kolkata [In Short Ld. 'Cit(A)'] Dated 08.08.2022 For The Assessment Years (In Short ‘Ay’) 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015- 16. I.T.(S.S.)A. Nos.: 55, 56, 57, 58, 59 & 463/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Bhagwati Foods Pvt. Ltd. (For The Merged Company Manis Baking Solutions Pvt. Ltd.). It(Ss)A No. 55/Kol/2022

Section 131Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…by the AO merely on the basis that the subscribers could not be produced for verification is bad in law. In defence of his argument Ld. A/R relied on the decisions of i) CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Ltd. in 159 ITR 78 (SC) ii) CIT Vs. Orchid Industries (P) Ltd. 397 ITR 136, iii) Crystal Networks (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT 353 ITR 171 & iv) M/s. Cygnus Developers India Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 282/KOL/2022 and M/s. Lucky Agencies Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO in ITA No. 2501/KOL/2019 dated 23.02.2023 which are discussed as under: a) In the case of Orissa Corporation Ltd. (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: Page 10 of 18 I.T.(S.S…

ITO WD.5(1) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Ams Trading & Investment Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1863/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahman Ito – Ward 5(1)(1), Amstrading&Investment Room No.570, 5Th Pvt Ltd.,1St Floor, बनाम/ Floor, Shatrunjayapartments, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, 28 Sindhi Lane, M.K.Road, Nanubhai Desai Road, Mumbai- 400020. Mumbai – 400004. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafca6183N (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

For Appellant: Smt.Sujatha Iyangar.DRFor Respondent: Shri.AjaySingh&ShriYogesh Joijode.AR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…at by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, the proposed question of law does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus not entertained. 9. Further, in recent decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd (2017) 397 ITR 136 (Bom)following the case law of Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd deleted the addition by observing in as under: - "5] The Assessing Officer added Rs.95 lakhs as income under Section 1 68 of the Income Tax Act only on the ground that the parties to whom the share certificates were issued and who had paid the share money had not appeared before th…

Sankatsathi Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-5(2)., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 194/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 68

…mited company has not been established. For the reasons given above we uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the revenue.” 7. Similar ratio has been laid down by the Hon’ble Mumbai High Court in the case of CIT Vs Orchid Industries (P) Ltd. 397 ITR 136 Page 6 of 9 I.T.A. No.: 194/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sankatsathi Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. by holding that provisions of Section 68 of the Act cannot be invoked for the reasons that the person has not appeared before the AO where the assessee had produced on records documents to establish genuineness of the party such as PAN, financial and…

ITO, Ward-6(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Goodpoint Estates Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 58/KOL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 144Section 68

…a limited company has not been established. For the reasons given above we uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the revenue.” Similar ratio has been laid down by the Hon’ble Mumbai High Court in the case of CIT Vs Orchid Industries (P) Ltd 397 ITR 136 by holding that provisions of section 68 of the Act cannot be invoked for the reasons that the person has not appeared before the AO where the assessee had produced on records documents to establish genuineness of the party such as PAN ,financial and bank statements showing share application money . 7. In the instant case before us also, the ass…

Yuthika Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 9(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 565/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…ITR 78 (SC) 4 I.T.A. No.565/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Yuthika Commercial Pvt. Ltd. 2.Crystal Networks (P)Ltd vs CIT reported in 353 ITR 171 (C 3. ITO Vs M/s Cygnus Developers India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 282/Kol/2012) 4. CIT Vs Orchid Industries (P) Ltd 397 ITR 136 (Bom) 6. The Ld. D.R on the other hand relied on the orders of authorities below by submitting that the assessee has failed to prove identity and creditworthiness of the investors and genuineness of the transactions and just filed certain papers to prove the investment received by the assessee were genuine. Under this circumstances, the Ld. D.R…