VIEWMORE ENCLAVE PVT. LTD.,SILIGURI V. ITO, WARD 9(1), KOLKATA

ITA 2106/KOL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Viewmore Enclave Pvt. Ltd., which appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, confirming the addition of 1,13,00,000 to the assessee's income as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2012-13. The primary contention was regarding the share capital and share premium received by the company. The ITO had initially added this amount to the income of the assessee, treating it as unexplained cash credit due to non-compliance with summons and non-submission of requisite documents. However, the Tribunal, after examining the documents and evidence provided by the assessee, concluded that the additions were unjustified and directed their removal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 790528 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 15-09-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S.B. CHAKRABORTHY
• Assessee Lawyers: SIDDHARTH AGARWAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Additional evidence; Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 68; 131

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM ITA No. 2106/KOL/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Viewmore Enclave Pvt. ltd. C/o Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson,1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2nd floor, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal Vs. ITO, Ward 9(1) Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, 5 th floor, P07, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AADCV9941M Assessee by : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AR Revenue by : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR Date of hearing: 18.11.2025 Date of pronouncement: 03.12.2025 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: 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. 2. At the outset, we note that the appeal of the assessee is barred by limitation by 15 days. At the time of hearing the counsel of the assessee explained the reasons for delay in filing the appeal. The Ld. A.R did not raise any objection in condoning the delay. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the delay is for bonafide and genuine reasons and hence, we condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal in the following paras. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 2 ITA No. 2106/KOL/2025 Viewmore Enclave Pvt. ltd.; A.Y. 2012-13 3. The issue raised in ground no.1 is general in nature and hence, need not require any adjudication. 4. The issue raised in ground no.2 is against the order of learned CIT (A) confirming the addition of ₹1,13,00,000/- as made by the learned AO u/s 68 of the Act in respect share capital/ share premium 4.1. The facts in brief are that the assessee has filed the return of income on 29.03.2013, declaring total income at ₹nil. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS for large share premium. Accordingly, statutory notices along with questionnaire were issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee filed before the learned AO all the details of the investors, who subscribed the share capital of the assessee company. Summons u/s 131 of the Act were also issued to the directors of the assessee company for personal attendance and to produce the source of investments, however, there was no compliance. Finally, the learned AO treated the amount of share capital/ share premium as unexplained cash credit and added to the income of the assessee. 4.2. In the appellate proceedings, the learned CIT (A) in para no.5.6.1 observed that the learned AO specifically mentioned in order sheet dated 09.03.2015, that assessee filed the some documents which did not include the documents relating to share premium. The learned CIT (A) thus noted that the learned AO is justified in adding the said amount to the income of the assessee. Besides, the learned CIT (A) noted that the assessee filed certain details in respect of shareholders, which were considered by the assessee as additional evidences. The learned CIT (A) noted that since the assessee has not moved any application under Rule 46A of the Rules, therefore, rejected these evidences. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 3 ITA No. 2106/KOL/2025 Viewmore Enclave Pvt. ltd.; A.Y. 2012-13 4.3. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the assessee has produced before the learned AO, its ITR, computation of income, audited financial statements, details of shareholders and so far as the investors are concerned copies of ITR ,financial statements, bank statements of the subscribers for the relevant years in respect of four subscribers who subscribed the equity share of the company. The details are available from page no.1 to 65. We have examined the documents field by the assessee in respect of four subscribers which are available from page no.3 to 65 and note that the subscribers have the capacity to invest in the assessee company and their identities were also proved, transactions of investment in shares of the assessee company also seems genuine and reasonable. The authorities below have not pointed out the any defects in the said documents. The learned CIT (A) did not even admit these evidences filed by the assessee under Rule 46A of the Rules, by stating that the assessee has not moved any application for admission of additional evidences, whereas as a matter of fact all these evidences were not in the nature of additional evidences and were available before the learned AO as well as before the learned CIT (A). Considering these facts, we are inclined to set aside the order of the learned CIT (A) and direct the learned AO to delete the addition. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 03.12.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY) (RAJESH KUMAR) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 03.12.2025 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS Printed from counselvise.com Page | 4 ITA No. 2106/KOL/2025 Viewmore Enclave Pvt. ltd.; A.Y. 2012-13 Copy of the Order forwarded to: BY ORDER, True Copy// Sr. Private Secretary/ Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, 5. Guard file. Printed from counselvise.com "