ITO, WARD-43(1), KOLKATA vs. SRI MANTU SHAW, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 620/KOL/2020Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 February 2023AY 2015-163 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had sufficiently proved the sundry creditors as advances from prospective buyers. The Tribunal also agreed that the difference in property valuation was within an acceptable limit, especially after referring the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting additions made by the Assessing Officer. The additions were related to bogus sundry creditors and the difference between stamp duty value and purchase consideration of a property.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting additions related to sundry creditors and property valuation differences without proper appreciation of facts and law.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 56(2)(viib)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH KOLKATA

Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

order : February 22, 2023 आदेश / ORDER संजय गग�, �या�यक सद�य �वारा / Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 04.09.2020 of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-13, Kolkata [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).

2.

The Revenue in this appeal has taken the following grounds of appeal: “i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT (A) - 13, Kolkata is erred in allowing the relief of the assessee amounting to Rs.2,77,71,696/- without appreciating the facts that the assessee had failed to submit the details of most of the sundry creditors during the assessment proceedings and no remand report called for during appellate proceeding.

More judgments on Section 56(2)(viib)

All 746 judgments and leading authorities on Section 56(2)(viib) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →