Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (6) TMI 965 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

2016 (6) TMI 965 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT - [2016] 385 ITR 399 - Addition u/s 68 - admitted liability - addition of share capital - Held that:- The Tribunal was justified in upholding the addition on account of alleged share capital to the extent of ₹ 8,77,500/- under Section 68. A sum of ₹ 6,62,000/- had earlier been admitted by the assessee during a disclosure as submitted by Mr. Khaitan. The share capital to the extent of Rs, 9,90,000/- was accepted both by the CIT(A) and the Tribuna .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e Tribunal, B Bench , Kolkata in ITA No.2421/Kol/2005 pertaining to the assessment year 1983-84 by which the learned Tribunal dismissed an appeal preferred by the assessee. The assessee has come up in appeal. The question formulated at the time of admission of the appeal on 6th June, 2007 reads as follows : (a) Whether and in any event, the Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the addition of share capital to the extent of ₹ 8,77,500/- under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ion was raised before the CIT (Appeals) and various orders of assessments were produced. Out of which, one of them transpired to be a forged one. Be that as it may, the CIT (Appeal) by his order dated 22nd December, 1992 restricted addition to a sum of ₹ 6,22,500/- being 25% of the paid up share capital of the assessee. The revenue preferred an appeal against that order alleging that the CIT (A) had erred in deleting addition of a sum of ₹ 18,67,000/-. The learned Tribunal by its jud .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

turn up. Eight shareholders responded by saying that they had never subscribed to the share capital of the assessee. They added that even the parenthood of some of the shareholders was wrongly described. In one case a brother of one of the applicant was shown as the father of the applicant. The balance i.e. nearly forty-eight notices came back with the endorsement not known . All the drawbacks were brought to the notice of the assessee by the assessing officer. The assessee replied by its letter .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ubscriber to the increased share capital were not genuine, under no circumstances could the amount at share capital be regarded as undisclosed income of the company. He further submitted that the Hon ble Supreme Court has confirmed the said decision of Delhi High Court. Mr. Bhutra, submitted in view of Hon ble Supreme Court s decision, share capital of ₹ 2490,000/- introduced during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1983-84 could not and should not be added back as income f .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

(Kol) of 2003 once again remitted the matter to the CIT (A) with the following direction;- He is directed to consider all the evidence furnished by the assessee in support of its claim and decide the issue on merit considering the criteria about identity, creditworthiness, etc. of the share applicants. The assessee is also free to adduce whatever evidence it feels necessary and the C.I.T.(A) shall give due opportunity of being heard to the assessee to explain its share. The assessee also shall c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d as listed by Calcutta Stock Exchange and also since the application and allotment money was directly deposited by the subscribers with the bankers and the whole share transaction money has to be treated as genuine. I am, therefore, of the view that it would be fair and just to accept the claim of the appellant company to the extent of the share allotment and the payment receipt although the shares were claimed to have been issued through public at large and subscribed. I am also of the opinion .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of law as already indicated, is whether the order of the learned Tribunal is perverse. In spite of giving umpteen opportunities the assessee was unable to prove that the sum of ₹ 24,90,000/- was received by the assessee on account of share application. Admittedly, the aforesaid sum was found credited in the books of the assessee maintained for the relevant previous year pertaining to the assessment year1983-84. The CIT (A) after giving fullest opportunity to the assessee was of the opinion .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

o explain up to ₹ 9,90,000/-. It is not the case of the assessee that any piece of evidence adduced by the assessee was ignored either by the assessing officer or by the CIT(A) or by the learned Tribunal. It is only on the basis of the evidence adduced by the assessee that the view was taken by the CIT (A) that it could be said that the assessee had succeeded in explaining an aggregate sum of ₹ 9,90,000/-. The learned Tribunal concurred with the finding of the CIT (A). Therefore, the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version