GOLDLINE DEALERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 9(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 483/KOL/2022Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 June 2023AY 2012-20133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to verify the assessee's contention that no such transaction occurred and to pass a fresh assessment order after providing a proper opportunity to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's assessment was reopened based on information that it received an accommodation entry of Rs. 5,88,50,000/- from M/s Lakshya Merchants Pvt. Ltd. The Assessing Officer made an addition of this amount as income escaped assessment, which was confirmed by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was justified without proper verification and opportunity to the assessee, especially when the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH KOLKATA

Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

order : June 27, 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 29.06.2022 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 has agitated against the addition of Rs.5,88,50,000/-, allegedly received by the assessee by way of accommodation entry provided by M/s Lakshya Merchants Pvt. Ltd.

3.

In this case, the original assessment order u/s 143(3) was passed on 23.03.2015 assessing the income of Rs.4,70,26,000/- as against the nil income shown by the assessee. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer Assessment year: 2012-13 Goldline Dealers Pvt. Ltd reopened the assessment on the information of the investigation wing that the assessee had received accommodation entry from M/s Lakshya Merchants Pvt. Ltd. Since, the assessee did not submit the necessary explanations/documents in this regard, the Assessing Officer held that the income of the assessee to the tune of Rs.5,88,50,000/- has escaped assessment. He accordingly made the impugned addition which was confirmed by the CIT(A).

4.

At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the impugned order of the CIT(A) to submit that the said order was passed by the CIT(A) ex parte of the assessee on 29.06.2022. The ld. counsel has further invited our attention to the various dates fixed by the CIT(A) to submit that the CIT(A) had fixed the date of hearings during the period of Covid-19 pandemic and the assessee could not furnish his reply/explanations during the said period. The ld. counsel has submitted in fact the assessee has not done any transaction with M/s Lakshya Merchants Pvt. Ltd. as alleged nor received any alleged sum of Rs.5,88,50,000/- and therefore there is no justification on the part of the lower authorities in making the impugned addition. The ld. counsel, therefore, has requested that the matter be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification of the aforesaid fact.

5.

Considering the above submissions, we accordingly set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to verify the aforesaid contention of the assessee and thereafter to pass a fresh assessment order in accordance with law. Needless to say that CIT(A) will give proper opportunity to the assessee to present its case. Assessment year: 2012-13 Goldline Dealers Pvt. Ltd

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →