ROYALPET TRADERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-4(1), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 133/KOL/2020Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 January 2023AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not granted a proper opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A). Therefore, the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns an addition of Rs. 9,91,00,000/- on account of share capital and premium. The assessee claimed it did not receive a fair opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A) and missed the notice due to a system change.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A) and if the addition made under Section 68 was justified without considering all evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 250,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SRI SANJAY GARG & DR. MANISH BORAD

order

: January 2nd, 2023 ORDER

Per Manish Borad, Accountant Member:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year (in short “AY”) 2012-13 is directed against the order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the “Act”) by ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-10, Kolkata [in I.T.A. No.: 133/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Royalpet Traders Pvt. Ltd. short ld. “CIT(A)”] dated 02.12.2019 arising out of the assessment order framed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 10.03.2015.

2.

The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds: “

1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the action of the Ld. CIT(A) to uphold the addition of Rs.9,91,00,000/- on account of share capital u/s 68 of the Act, made by the AO is contrary to the material evidences on record and the addition made is arbitrary, excessive and bad in law.

2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the action of the Ld. CIT(A) to uphold the disallowance of Rs.9,91,00,000/- on account of share capital by treating it as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act, made by the AO is without considering the evidences and submissions filed and the addition made is in violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore the addition made is arbitrary, excessive and bad in law.

3. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) upholding the additions made by the Assessing Officer is illegal, arbitrary and bad in law.

4. That the above grounds of appeal shall be argued in detail at the time of hearing and the appellant craves leave to submit, add, alter, modify, amend any grounds of appeal or submit any additional grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing.”

3. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the assessee did not get fair opportunity to plead its case before ld. CIT(A) nor could file various evidences explaining the source of share capital and share premium totalling to Rs. 9.91 Cr. Prayer was made to restore the issue raised on merit to ld. CIT(A) for afresh adjudication considering the details filed during the course of hearing before this Tribunal.

4. On the other hand, ld. D/R though supported the order of ld. CIT(A) stating it to be a well-reasoned order but could not

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →