Case Law Details
PCIT Vs Outcome Buildcom Pvt Ltd (Calcutta High Court)
In the case of PCIT vs. Outcome Buildcom Pvt Ltd, the Calcutta High Court upheld the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal’s (ITAT) decision to dismiss an addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue had appealed against the ITAT’s ruling which deleted an addition of ₹13,56,00,000 related to share capital and premium, questioning the genuineness of the transactions due to the absence of creditor identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness. The Court found that the ITAT had correctly re-assessed the facts, noting that the assessee had provided complete documentation and evidence to support the transactions. The Assessing Officer had failed to identify specific errors or discrepancies in the submitted documents and did not conduct an independent verification of the transactions. Consequently, the High Court determined that there was no substantial question of law and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, affirming the ITAT’s decision.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
This is an appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). It is directed against an order dated July 3, 2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Kolkata (in short ‘the Tribunal’) in I.T.A No.652/Kol/2020 for the Assessment Year 2012-13.
The revenue has raised the following substantial question of law for consideration.
(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the
Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs.13,56,00,000/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of share capital and premium in absence of identity of creditors and, genuineness and creditworthiness of the entire transactions?
The short question which falls for consideration is whether the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Act was justifiable. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 7 Kolkata (CITA) set aside the addition made and allowed the assessee’s appeal. The Revenue carried the matter on appeal. We find from the order passed by the learned Tribunal that the facts of the case have been re-appreciated and the learned Tribunal has recorded a finding that the assessee has demonstrated successfully the nature of the sum received during the year and the source of the said sum being received from the share applicants and complete evidence has been submitted. Further, it has been pointed out that the Assessing Officer has not pointed out any specific error in all the documents nor any discrepancies in the information provided by the assessee. Furthermore, the Tribunal on facts found that the Assessing Officer has not paid any independent enquiry to verify the genuineness of the transaction in spite of the assessee having furnished all details and documents before the Assessing Officer. Thus, we find that the matter is fully factual and no substantial question of law arises for consideration.
Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed.
Consequently, the application stands closed.
Author Bio
