Viewmore Enclave Pvt Ltd Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata)
Share Capital & Premium Fully Explained—s.68 Addition of ₹1.13 Cr Deleted; CIT(A) Erred in Rejecting Evidence
Assessee filed return declaring Nil income. Case selected for scrutiny for large share premium. Assessee furnished before AO complete details of four investors—including ITRs, financials, bank statements & confirmations. AO issued summons u/s 131 but directors did not appear. AO held share capital/premium of ₹1,13,00,000 as unexplained u/s 68.
Before CIT(A), Assessee again filed investor details. CIT(A) refused to admit documents, calling them “additional evidence” & rejected them for want of Rule 46A petition, even though such documents were already filed before AO.
Tribunal examined the entire set of investor records and held:
- Identity of all subscribers established.
- Creditworthiness proved through ITRs, financials & bank statements.
- Genuineness of share subscription also evidenced by banking trail.
- Authorities pointed out no defects in documentation.
- CIT(A) erred in mechanically refusing evidence, especially when they were already before AO.
Accordingly, Tribunal set aside CIT(A)’s order & directed AO to delete the addition u/s 68 in full.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT KOLKATA
This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 13.06.2025 for the AY 2012-13.
