TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 1015X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the CIT(A) - No question of law much less substantial question of law is arising for consideration in this appeal. - HON BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM AND HON BLE JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA Appearance : For the Appellant : M s. Smita Das De, Adv. Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. Kartik Kurmy, Adv. (VC) Mr. Indranil Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Subrata Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Debayan Dutta, Adv. The Court : 1. We have heard Ms. Smita Das De, learned standing Counsel appearing for the appellant revenue and Mr. Kartik Kurmy, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent assessee. 2. There is a delay of 59 days in filing the present appeal. 3. We are satisfied with the reasons given by the appellant department for not preferri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to shares of the assessee company as a premium who is the ultimate beneficiary ? 6. After elaborately hearing the learned Advocates for the parties and carefully perusing the materials placed on record, we find that while contesting the correctness of the assessment order passed by the assessing officer under Section 143(3) of the Act dated 4.3.2015 by which the assessing officer added back the entire share application/allotment money under Section 68 of the Act as undisclosed cash credit, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Kolkata 20 [CIT(A)] has done an elaborately factual exercise. There were two companies which were involved one being M/s. Honesty Dealers Private Limited and the other M/s. Seaview Agencies Private Limited. The C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unaccounted income received by M/s. Seaview Agencies Private Limited and accordingly, addition was made treating the same as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act. Similarly, for the assessment year 2012-13 there was another information from the investigation wing regarding the unaccounted income and this amount was also added to the total income. The CIT(A) perused the assessment orders for those two years which showed that the assessing officer has not made any adverse comment on the entries of the balance-sheet. 8. Furthermore, on facts the CIT(A) found that the investigation wing has not found any adverse comments against share capital raised by M/s. Seaview Agencies Private Limited in the assessment year 2009-10. Thus, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Principal CIT Vs. Sreeleathers reported in [2022] 448 ITR 332 (Cal). 11. After taking note of the legal position as set out in the said decisions, the tribunal affirmed the order passed by the CIT(A) by recording a factual finding that the three necessary ingredients, namely, identity, creditworthiness of the share applicants and genuineness of the transaction as provided under Section 68 of the Act have been established and there was no ground to interfere with the order passed by the CIT(A) dated 25.1.2023. 12. Thus, we find no question of law much less substantial question of law is arising for consideration in this appeal. 13. Hence, the appeal fails and is dismissed. 14. The stay application GA/2/2024 also stands dismissed. - - Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
