RAVINDRA KUMAR AGARWAL HUF,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-46(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 810/KOL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 December 2023AY 2001-023 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) failed to provide any basis or discussion to prove the transactions were bogus or that undisclosed income was introduced. The orders were deemed non-speaking and devoid of merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged the reopening of assessment and additions made by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer treated Rs. 47,34,280/- as undisclosed income, alleging accommodation entries. The assessee claimed to have sold shares and offered short-term capital gains.

What were the issues?

Validity of reopening of assessment and the addition made on account of alleged accommodation entries without proper justification.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA

Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

order : December 14, 2023 आदेश / ORDER संजय गग�, �या�यक सद�य �वारा / Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 06.06.2023 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).

2.

The assessee in this appeal, apart from challenging the validity of the reopening of the assessment u/s 147 of the Act, has also taken the legal ground relating to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer i.e. ITO, Ward-4(6(3), Kolkata. Apart from that the assessee has contested the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.47,34,280/- treating the said amount as undisclosed income of the assessee.

1.

Assessment year: 2001-02 Ravindra Kumar Agarwal HUF 3. Though the ld. counsel for the assessee has stressed that earlier the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued by ITO, Ward-4(3), Agra on 20.03.2008, however, the assessee objected to the said jurisdiction of the ITO, Ward-4(3), Agra. Thereafter, the case was transferred to ITO, Ward- 46(3), Kolkata, however, the said officer did not issue notice to the assessee u/s 148 of the Act.

4.

We find that instead of going through this legal issue, the assessee has fair case on merits also. A perusal of the assessment order reveals that the Assessing Officer has made the following one para observation for making the impugned additions:

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →