TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
The Registry pointed out that the appeal of the Revenue was time-barred by 40 days. The Assessing Officer filed an application for condonation of delay, explaining that due to work pressure and insufficient system resources, the appeal order could not be regularly checked on the ITBA system. The Tribunal, after considering the explanation and the workload on the Assessing Officer, condoned the delay of 40 days and decided to proceed with the appeal on merit.
Deletion of Addition under Section 68:The Revenue's primary grievance was that the CIT(Appeals) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,00,00,000/-, which the Assessing Officer treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer had questioned the receipt of share capital along with share premium, especially given the assessee-company's continuous losses and the high premium of Rs. 49 per share.
The CIT(Appeals) found that all four share applicant companies had responded to notices and provided necessary documents to prove the genuineness of the transactions. The Directors of these companies appeared before the Assessing Officer and their statements were recorded, establishing their identity. The bank statements and audited accounts of the share applicant companies showed sufficient creditworthiness. The CIT(Appeals) noted that the Assessing Officer did not provide any evidence to substantiate the suspicion that the funds were unaccounted money. The CIT(Appeals) also highlighted that the provision for taxing excess share premium under section 56(2)(viib) was applicable from AY 2013-14 and not for the relevant assessment year 2012-13.
The Tribunal, after reviewing the records and the findings of the CIT(Appeals), agreed that the addition made under section 68 was not factually and legally sustainable. It was noted that the share applicant companies were group companies with substantial net worth and had made investments through proper banking channels. The Tribunal found no justification in the Assessing Officer's suspicion and upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision to delete the addition.
In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue on merit.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 08.11.2023.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
