“share application money”

Cash Credits & Unexplained ItemsSection 68Section 682,489 judgments

The decision most relied on for share application money is CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. (216 CTR 195), cited in 854 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on share application money

CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd.

216 CTR 195 · 2008 · Supreme Court

854

citing judgments

If an assessee company receives share application money from alleged bogus shareholders and provides their details to the Assessing Officer, no addition can be made under Section 68 in the company's hands; the Department must proceed against the shareholders by reopening their individual assessments.

(Central)-1 v. NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd.

103 Taxmann.com 48 · 2019 · Supreme Court

696

citing judgments

When assessing cash credits, share capital, or loans, the assessee bears the onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions. This burden is not discharged merely by documentary evidence if field inquiries reveal accommodation entries or dealings with paper/shell companies.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd.

342 ITR 169 · 2012 · High Court

658

citing judgments

To make an addition under Section 68 for unexplained cash credits, the Assessing Officer must conduct proper inquiry into the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditor, especially concerning share application money. The assessee's initial discharge of burden by providing necessary details shifts the onus back to the AO for further investigation, including the source of source.

Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT

264 ITR 254 · 2003 · High Court

340

citing judgments

For a cash credit, merely transacting by cheque is insufficient to discharge the assessee's burden of proof. The assessee must prove the identity of the creditors, the genuineness of the transaction, and the creditworthiness of the creditors; upon which, the burden shifts to the revenue.

CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd.

361 ITR 220 · 2014 · High Court

328

citing judgments

When making an addition under section 68, the creditworthiness or financial strength of an investor contributing share capital or share application money can be proved by producing their bank statements showing sufficient balance for the investment. The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP against this decision.

CIT v. Sophia Finance Ltd.

205 ITR 98 · 1994 · High Court

295

citing judgments

To discharge the burden of proof under Section 68 for share capital or share application money, an assessee must establish the identity of the shareholders and the genuineness of the transaction, confirming that the payment was truly made by them.

CIT v. Oasis Hospitalities P. Ltd.

333 ITR 119 · 2011 · High Court

292

citing judgments

When explaining cash credits under Section 68, the assessee must establish the identity of the creditor, their creditworthiness or financial capacity, and the genuineness of the transaction. Merely proving identity does not discharge this initial onus, which shifts to the Assessing Officer once these three elements are prima facie proven.

CIT v. Nipun Builders & Developers

350 ITR 407 · 2013 · High Court

264

citing judgments

For any sum credited in an assessee's books, including share application money, the assessee must prove the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor and the genuineness of the transaction. Failure to discharge this onus under Section 68 renders the amount taxable.

Judgments citing share application money

Gem Forgings Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 1423/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 68

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 . 18.4 Even the unsecured loans taken by the were repaid in the subsequent years. We also note that the interest has been paid on these

Shrikanta Bajaj, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-32, Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2599/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarasstt. Year: 2015-16 Smt. Shrikanta Bajaj, Vs. Dcit, Rnb House, Central Circle-32, 1 Near Raja Garden Delhi. Opp. Mother Dairy, New Delhi 0 110 027 Pan Ahlpr0130J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Veer Singh,CIT- DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

Learned CIT(A), we clearly observe that in these case issue was of alleging the allotment of Shares by assessee company against share application money and share premium and the AO made addition under section 68 of the Act by holding that the identity and creditworthiness of investor and genuineness ... established by the share application and premium recipient assessee company. But in the present case, the assessee has not received any share application money or premium from the investor but the impugned transaction in the present case pertains to sale of investment/shares by the assessee to the other entities

ITO, Ward-5(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Vishnu Distributors Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is devoid of any merit, hence dismissed

ITA 50/KOL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 50/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-2013

Section 131Section 14ASection 68

with the required details/documents and (b) the assessee could not offer any explanation as to why the said share application money should not be treated as bogus and un explained cash credit in its books as per the provisions of section 68 of the Act. 3 Vishnu Distributors Pvt. Limited

G.S.Auto International Limited, Ludhiana vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-II, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 391/CHANDI/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 May 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.391/Chandi/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 G.S. Auto International बनाम Acit, Central Circle-Ii, Limited Ludhiana G.S. Estate, G T Road, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaacg6090R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri P. K. Goel, Ca & Shri Sunil Arora, Advocate. राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Rohit Sharma, Cit, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 01.04.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.05.2024 आदेश/Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.04.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Assessment Year : 2012-13 G.S. Auto International Limited Page 2 Of 6

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Goel, CA and Shri SunilFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT, DR

Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, “A” CHANDIGARH

Jasum Real Estate Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 1 (2) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4428/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicialmember & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 68

submissions made by the assessee held that assessee had failed to prove the bonafides of the share subscribing companies. He thus, treated the share application money as un-explained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act and added it to the total income. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before

Income Tax Officer, Gurgaon vs. Sunray Cotspin Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3222/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon Ble High Court. 2. On The Fact & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Adjudicating On The Issue Of Share Application Money From The Persons From Whose Creditworthiness Could Not Be Proved. 3. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Adjudicating On The Issue Of Share Premium From The Person From Whose Creditworthiness Could Not Be Proved. 4. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Adjudicating On The Issue Of Share Application Money For Pending Allotment From The Persons From Whom Creditworthiness Could Not Be Proved.”

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 68

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating on the issue of share application money from the persons from whose creditworthiness could not be proved. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating on the issue of Share application money for pending allotment from the persons from whom creditworthiness could not be proved.” 3. The brief facts of the case are, the assessee filed its return

DCIT, Circle-13(1), New Delhi vs. Janpath Ventures Pvt.Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 9015/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Sunny Mittal, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT (DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

course of assessment proceedings, the AO inter alia found that during the assessment year, assessee has received large share application money from various parties as under: I.T.A. No. 9015/Del/2019 2 S. No. Name of the parties Total share application money received 1. Mrs. Arshpreet Singh Khangur- Rs.1 ... filed nor the purported subscribers were produced. The AO also observed that the company has neither issued any shares against so called share application money received nor have returned the money received to the share applicants. The AO thus concluded that the assessee has failed to provide satisfactory explanation towards

Geap Industries (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-9(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4016/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble& Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Hiren R. VepariFor Respondent: Shri Suresh D. Gaikwad, Sr.AR

notices issued by the Ld CIT(A). 3. The ld.A.R submitted that the additions made by the Assessing Officer consisted of addition of share application money and sundry creditors balance. The ld.A.R submitted that the appeal was originally heard in the physical mode by ld.CIT(A) -16,Mumbai

DCIT-15(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Luxora Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2763/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit – 15(1)(2) V. M/S. Luxora Infrastructure Pvt., Ltd., Unit No. 150, Avior Corporate Park Room No. 126-B, 1St Floor Nirmal Galaxy Lbs Road Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai -400020 Mulund (West), Mumbai -400080 Pan: Aabcl2854K (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Rohithaksha Devadiga Assessee Represented By : Department Represented By : Shri Ajay Chandra

Section 68

made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) on account of share application money. 3. A perusal of the aforementioned grievance show that the tax effect would be less than ₹.50 Lakhs. Therefore, this appeal by the revenue has to be dismissed

Advent Vinimay Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-9(1), Kolkata

ITA 221/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos. 220 & 221/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2012-2013 & 2014-2015 Advent Vinimay Private Limited,………..….Appellant 207, Maharishi Devendra Road, Burrabazar, Kolkata-700007 [Pan:Aaica3094K] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…….…………………….…Respondent Ward-9(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, D.R. & Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

close-circuit. When companies incorporated under the Companies Act raise their capital through shares, various persons would apply for shares and then give share; application money. This amount received from such share holder would naturally be credited in the books of accounts of the assessee. Once the alleged share; capital ... shareholder company was only a paper company having no source of income, but had made substantial and huge investments in the form of share application money. The assessing officer has referred to the bank statement, financial 8 & Advent Vinimay Private Limited position of the recipient and beneficiary assessee and surrounding

Advent Vinimay Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-9(1), Kolkata

ITA 220/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 May 2024AY 2012-13

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

M/S Devbhumi Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1393/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI SANJAY GARG, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Paul, Addl. CIT, D/R

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

return and financial statements of the share applicants. The ld. CIT(A) held that, since the assessee failed to produce payees of share application money before the ld. Assessing Officer in response to summons u/s 131 of the Act, it failed to discharge its onus to prove identity and creditworthiness

M/S Olympus Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT, Cir-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1088/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 May 2024AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1088/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Olympus Suppliers Pvt Ltd.……..…………............…...……………....Appellant 15/B, Clive Row, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aabco0624Q] Vs. Pcit, Circle-2, Kolkata……….…...............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 10, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 13, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 23.03.2015 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pr. Cit’] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. This Is A Second Round Of Litigation Before Us. Earlier, The Assessee Had Filed Appeal Before This Tribunal Against The Impugned Order Of The Pr. Cit Passed U/S 263 Of The Act, However, The Said Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed Along With Three Other Cases By A Common Order Dated 05.08.2016. Being Aggrieved By The Said Order, The Assessee Preferred Further Appeal Before The Hon’Ble Calcutta High Court Bearing No. Itat/328/2017 Ia No.Ga/2/2017 (Old No.Ga/3184/2017). It Was Pleaded Before The Hon’Ble Calcutta High Court That The Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed Along With Other Appeals, However, The Specific

Section 143(1)Section 151Section 263

this case was of the view that the Assessing Officer has not properly examined the issue relating to the share application money along with premium received by the assessee during the year. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 28.08.2009 declaring ... dropped.” 4.1 The ld. Pr. CIT however observed that the Assessing Officer has not made proper and adequate enquiries relating to the share application money received by the assessee during the year. He in this respect noted the following facts: “i) the notices u/s. 133(6) have been sent only

DCIT-14(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Jaymala Infrastructure Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dism

ITA 2719/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Ankush Kapoor, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Ajay Singh

Section 143(3)Section 68

public are substantially interested), and the sum company in which the public are substantially interested), and the sum so credited consists of share application money, share capital, share so credited consists of share application money, share capital, share so credited consists of share application money, share capital, share premium ... into three categories. The is addition of Rs.11,25,00,000/ addition of Rs.11,25,00,000/-, where the share application where the share application money was received in financial year 2010-11 i.e. corresponding to i.e. corresponding to assessment year 2011 assessment year 2011-12, which was duly verified

M/S Ncs, Impex Holding Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward -8(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1394/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 68

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. 5.4. In the instant case before us also, the assessee has furnished all the evidences proving identity and creditworthiness of the investors and genuineness

ITO-13(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Sethia Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is allowed

ITA 2739/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleito-13(2)(1) V. Sethia Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd 701, Central Plaza 147, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Daftari Road, Malad (East) M. K. Marg, Mumbai Mumbai, Maharashtra -400097 Maharashtra-400020 Pan: Aalcs9354B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Jaiprakash Bairaga & Rupa Nanda Department Represented By : Dr. Kishor Dhule

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

Appeal (C) No. 29855/2018 has held that provision made in section 68 is having wider scope and addition can be made for share application money and share premium even before the amendment in income tax Act, 1961." 4. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case ... statement was recorded earlier retracted from the statement on 23.04.2015. The assessee furnished the copies of the share certificates and explained that the share application money has been received from RTGS / Cheque / Transfer of funds. The Assessing Officer gave due consideration to the submissions of the assessee

Harisneh Vanijya Private Limited., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-5(1)/ Kolkata., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1322/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg&Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 68Section 69

share applicants, the address is mentioned as No. 33/1, NS Road, 167, Marshal House, Kolkata-700001. Further in all the cases, source for share application money is stated to be loan repayment. It is also seen from the ITR acknowledgement that all the share applicants have offered nil income

Native Konbac Bamboo Products Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 7 (2) (3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4851/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Anant N Pai, CAFor Respondent: Shri Laxmi Kant, Sr. DR

Section 56(2)(viib)

course of hearing noticed that the assessee has shown in the balance- sheet a sum of Rs. 1,60,85,400/- as share application money along with the premium of Rs. 1,43,92,200/-. The AO called on the assessee to furnish details with regard to valuation of shares

DCIT, Faridabad vs. M/S. Vsb Investment Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad

In the result, the cross objection of the Assessee is allowed whereas the Revenue appeal is dismissed

ITA 467/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Amit Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

assessee-company was keeping substantial amount for the period since 2005-06 to 2011-12 without paying any interest, had shown it as share application money while the party concerned showed it as loans and advances in its books and the fact that no shares had been allotted from ... against the alleged share application money received.?” 3. The grounds of Cross Objection raised by the assessee in the Revenue’s appeal are also reproduced hereunder: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in holding that proceedings u/s. 147/148 and the assessment proceedings are valid in law despite

Tirumala Irons (P) Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-4(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 993/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 993/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Tirumala Irons (P) Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 4(1), Subash Agarwal & Associates, Vs Kolkata /Assessing Officer, Nfac, Delhi Advocates Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane Suite 213, 2Nd Floor Kolkata - 700069 [Pan : Aaact9984H] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter The “Ld. First Appellate Authority”) Dt. 27/07/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Passing The Order Exparte Without Affording Reasonable Opportunity Of Hearing. 2. For That The Ld. Cit (A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 4,81,00,000/- Made By The A.O. On Account Of Share Capital Including Share Premium By Wrongly Applying The Decision Of Hon'Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Cit Vs. T.V. Sundaram Iyenger & Sons Ltd. 222 Itr 344. 2

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250Section 68

premium received”. During the year, Rs.4,81,00,000/- has been transferred to share forfeited account. This amount was appearing under the head share application money in the preceding financial year. The ld. Assessing Officer observed that the alleged sum transferred to share forfeited account is liable to be treated ... improbable that a private limited company has received share application from the known persons and they have not paid some part of the share application money and have accepted to get their amount forfeited. The ld. Assessing Officer also observed that the summons issued