Skip to main content

M/s. Emerald Properties Pvt. Ltd. (Successor to Business Function Consultancy Pvt. Ltd.) Vs. ITO, Ward-5(3), Kolkata

Case No: I.T.A. No.: 1043/KOL/2023
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata ‘D’ Bench
Date: 3/6/2025

Parties Involved

AppellantM/s. Emerald Properties Pvt. Ltd. (Successor to Business Function Consultancy Pvt. Ltd.)
RespondentITO, Ward-5(3), Kolkata

Facts Summary

The assessee, M/s. Emerald Properties Pvt. Ltd. (Successor to Business Function Consultancy Pvt. Ltd.), filed a return of income declaring a total income of Rs. 19,740/-. However, it was assessed on an income of Rs. 7,28,78,870/- by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. A sum of Rs. 7,25,67,000/- received as share capital and share premium was added as cash credit under section 68 of the Act. Another sum of Rs. 2,92,132/- was disallowed under section 14A of the Act. The assessee claimed that it had submitted details and evidences in support of the share capital and had demonstrated the genuineness, creditworthiness, and identity of the share applicants. However, the AO ignored the evidences and made the additions purely on conjectures and surmises. The assessee also alleged that the AO refused to take material evidences and statements during the assessment proceedings with intent to make additions with a pre-determined mind and due to influence from higher authorities, which caused prejudice to the assessee.

Decision in favour of

Assessee

Legal Issues

  • 1. Whether the appellate order was passed on an ex-parte basis without considering the submissions made by the appellant.
  • 2. Whether the addition made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for non-compliance of summon under section 131 of the Act is justified.
  • 3. Whether the order passed by the learned CIT (Appeals) is bad in law.
  • 4. Whether the addition of Rs.7,25,67,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit being share capital and premium under section 68 of the Act is justified.
  • 5. Whether the appellate order passed on the assessment order was in violation of the principles of natural justice.
  • 6. Whether the interest confirmed under sections 234A/B/C by the learned CIT (Appeals) was justified.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

3 precedents cited in this judgement.

Opakhya LogoOpakhya

AI-powered tax-litigation platform. Find precedents using natural language, draft submissions in minutes, and run your entire case repository from a single secure workspace.

© 2025 Opakhya. All rights reserved.

Core Features

Additional Features

  • Smart Comments
  • Export Options
  • Quick Copy
  • Analytics Dashboard
Version 2.0.1Last updated: October 2025
Powered by AI & Machine Learning