Case Law Details
Urmila Properties Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata)
Conclusion: The ITAT on the issue of addition under Section 68 observed that in the impugned Assessment Order, the AO has passed the impugned Assessment Order in a hurried manner even without pointing out any defect or discrepancy in the evidences and details furnished by the assessee. Therefore, additions under Section 68 were ordered to be deleted.
Facts: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 24.12.2019 of the CIT(A) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee in this appeal has taken the following main ground of appeal:
For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of the AO in adding back the share capital including premium of Rs.2,53,00,000/- raised during the year from15 subscriber companies as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 by holding that the appellant failed to prove the identity, creditworthiness of the party and genuineness of the transactions, when all the details and evidences were filed to prove the same, the AO made enquiry u/s 133 (6) and did not proceed further and as such the assessee discharged the onus that lay upon him.
The brief facts of the case, as culled out from the Assessment Order dated 25.03.2015, are that the assessee filed its return of income for the relevant assessment year on 13.08.2012. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. Accordingly a notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued by the concerned Assessing Officer (in short the ‘AO’). Thereafter, a notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was also issued by the AO. In response to the above notices, the assessee filed requisite details and documents and financial statement of accounts.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
