CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd.

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

…or non-appearance of the investors before the AO could not justify the addition when all the evidences are before the AO as well as Ld. CIT(A). In defense of argument the Ld. A.R relied on the following decisions: 1.CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Ltd. in [1986] 159 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…

ITO, Ward-5(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Fastflow Securities (P) Ltd, Kolkata

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 32/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito, Ward-5(1), Kolkata...................……….........…..........………...…… Appellant Vs. M/S. Fastflow Securities Pvt. Ltd.........…....…….......….....…...…....... Respondent 41, N.S. Kolkata - 70001 [Pan: Aabcf8361P] Appearances By: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri V.K. Jain, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 15Th, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 13Th, 2023 आदेश / Order Per Dr. Manish Borad, Accounant Member: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 02.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 35 (Thirty Five) Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Impugned Order By Ld. Cit(A) Is Dated 02/09/2020 Which Falls Within The Period Of Pandemic Of Covid-19. Petition For Condonation Of Delay Is Placed On Record By Revenue Explaining The Reasons For Delay, Owing To Pandemic Of Covid-19 During That Time. We Note That The Period Of Delay Falls During The Time Of Pandemic Of I.T.A. No. 32/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Fastflow Securities Pvt. Ltd

…ubmitted several judicial pronouncements to the effect that mere non-appearance of the share applicant is no basis for invoking provisions of Sec. 68 which includes the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Orissa Corpn. (P) Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- "In this case the assessee had given the names and addresses of the alleged creditors. It was in the knowledge of the revenue that the said creditors were the income tax assessees. Their index number was in the file of the revenue. The revenue, apart from issuing notices under section 131 at t…

Subhdhan Financial Advisory Private Limited, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-9(4), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 2198/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Subhdhan Financial Advisory Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(4) Private Limited Vs C/O Sri Jitendra Kaushik, Advocate 19D, Muktaram Babu Street Kolkata - 700007 [Pan : Aamcs7818P] अपीलाथ"/ (Assessee ) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Fca Revenue By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/07/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 15, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”], Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 13/03/2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax(A) 15, Kolkata Is Arbitrary, Illegal & Bad In Law. 2. For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) 15, Erred In Confirming The Action Of Income-Tax Officer Adding A Sum Of Rs.72,00,000/- Under Section 68 Of The I T Act 1961. 3. For That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter Or Amend Any Ground Before Or At The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.”

…not produce the directors of the share subscribing companies. In our considered opinion, for this reason alone, there cannot be any addition u/s 68 of the Act as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. reported in 159 ITR 78 (SC). We find that the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Novo Promoters and Finelease Pvt. Ltd. reported in 342 ITR 169 (Del) vehemently relied upon by the ld. DR before us, is not applicable in the instant case, as in the facts before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the notices u/s 133(6) have not been duly complied with. Hence th…

ITO, Ward-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Outcome Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble

…submitted that mere non-appearance of directors of subscriber companies is no basis for invoking provisions of section 68 of the act for which he placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) wherein it was held as under: "In this case the assessee 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 number was in the file of the Revenue. The Revenue, apart from issuing notices under section 131 at the instance of the asses…

M/S. Moontree Niketan Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward4(1)., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13 Moontree Niketan Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer-4(1), 5, Clive Row, Dalhousie, Vs. Kolkata. Kolkata-700001. (Pan: Aahcm8056A) (Appellant) (Respondent)

…. 13. Ld. Counsel also submitted that mere non-appearance of directors is no basis for invoking provisions of section 68 of the Act for which he placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) wherein it was held as under: “In this case the assessee had given the names and addresses of the alleged creditors. It was in the knowledge of the revenue that the said creditors were the income-tax assessees. Their index number was in the file of the revenue. The revenue, apart from issuing notices under section 131 at the instance of the…

M/S Joy Consolidated Pvt Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Joy Consolidated Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Ward-3(1), Kolkata C/O. Rajesh Mohan & Associates, Unit No. 18 5Th Floor, Vs. Bagati House, 34, Ganesh Chandra Avenue. Kolkata-13 Pan: Aaccm 0673 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ca Respondent By : Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit Date Of Hearing : 30.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2023 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 01.10.2019 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-17, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’].

…idated Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2012-13 proving the sources of investments with the aid of necessary documents as stated above. The case of the assessee finds support from decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Orisssa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC) which is on the issue of share premium. The relevant extracts of the Hon’ble Apex Court decision is reproduced 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 o…

Gulmohar Distributors Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-9(2), Kolkata

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2009-10

…ys. 6.7. He further stated that mere non-appearance of directors is no basis for invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Act for which he placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC,) wherein it was held as under: “In this case the assessee had given the names and addresses of the alleged creditors. It was in the knowledge of the revenue that the said creditors were the income-tax assessees. Their index number was in the file of the revenue. The revenue, apart from issuing notices under section 131 at the instance of the…

Shanker Credits Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Arma]

…the ratios laid down in the various decisions. The Ld. A.R in defense of his arguments relied on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. 5 I.T.A. No. 132/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shanker Credits Pvt. Ltd. Orissa Corporation Ltd. in 159 ITR 78 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme court has held that where the assessee has filed names and addresses of the alleged creditors and it is in the knowledge of the revenue that the said creditors were income tax assessees and their index numbers were in the file of the revenue, then it is the duty of revenue to examine the source of income of the sai…

M/S Krishilakshmi Rice Mill Pvt. Ltd., Burdwan vs. I.T.O., Ward-1(2), Burdwan

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 605/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Krishilakshmi Rice Mill Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward - Vill.- Hatgobindapur Vs 1(2), Kolkata Dist.- Burdwan Pincode - 713407 [Pan : Aaeck1877C] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Is The Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - Burdwan (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Cit(A)”], Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 25/01/2019 For The Assessment Year 2012-13, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Ld. C.I.T.(A) On 25.01.2019 Is Completely Arbitrary, Unjustified & Illegal. 2. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.207,00,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Share Application Money With Share Premium By Wrongly Treating The Same As Unexplained Cash Credit U/S 68 Which Is Completely Arbitrary, Unjustified & Illegal. 3. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Considered That The Assessee Company Had Discharged Its Onus By Furnishing All The Relevant Documents In Connection With The Share Capital Raised & Also Proved The Identity, Creditworthiness Of The Share Application And

…be served or they failed to attend before the Assessing Officer, cannot be a ground to treat the loans taken by the assessee from those creditors as non-genuine in view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Orissa Corporation (1986) 159 ITR 78. In the said decision the Supreme Court has observed that when the assessee furnishes names and addresses of the alleged creditors and the GIR numbers, the burden shifts to the Department to establish the Revenue's case and in order to sustain the addition the Revenue has to pursue the enquiry and to establish the lack of creditworthiness and mere…