M/S. RADISON PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 8(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed
ITA 11/KOL/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Mar 2023AY 2012-2013
Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 11/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Radison Projects Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 8(3), 21, Camac Street Vs Kolkata Happy House Kolkata - 700016 [Pan : Aafcr7565P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate & Shri Pranabesh Sarkar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02/03/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/03/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Is The Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Cit(A)”], Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 14/12/2022 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 14.12.2022 Which 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.1,37,00,000/- Made By The A.O. 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
For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, D/R
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 234ASection 250Section 68
234B amounting to Rs. 503,844/- & 16,01,532/- respectively which are mechanically wrong and illegal.
7. For that the appellant reserves the right to adduce any further ground or grounds, if necessary, at or before the hearing of the appeal.”
2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Private Limited
Company. Income of Rs.667/- declared
