PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 1 KOLKATA vs. YUTHIKA COMMERCIAL PVT LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITAT/8/2024HC CalcuttaWBCHCO000066202419 February 2024Bench: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that while the Tribunal, as the last fact-finding authority, has the jurisdiction to examine documents to ascertain the genuineness of transactions, identity, and creditworthiness of investors, it had not performed this exercise. The Tribunal had merely allowed the assessee's appeal on the ground that the Assessing Officer did not consider the materials and documents produced by the assessee nor conduct an enquiry. The Court found that the Tribunal could have called for a report from the Assessing Officer and examined it to record its satisfaction. Since this exercise was not done, the High Court deemed it proper to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration on merits. The substantial questions of law raised by the assessee were left open. The appeal by the revenue was allowed, the order of the Tribunal and the CIT(A) were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a rehearing.

What were the facts?

This appeal by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-1, Kolkata (Revenue) is against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) dated July 25, 2023, for Assessment Year 2012-13. The Tribunal had set aside the order of the CIT (Appeals), which had confirmed an addition of Rs. 5,42,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer's order was passed under Section 143(3) on March 28, 2015. The CIT (Appeals) had affirmed this addition. The Tribunal's decision was based on the ground that the Assessing Officer had not properly examined the materials provided by the assessee and had not conducted an adequate enquiry. The High Court noted that the Tribunal, as the last fact-finding authority, had not conducted its own examination of the documents to ascertain the genuineness of the transactions, identity, and creditworthiness of the share applicants.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in setting aside the CIT (Appeals) order, which confirmed the addition of Rs. 5,42,00,000/- made under Section 68, on the grounds that the identity, creditworthiness of share applicants, and genuineness of transactions were proved? 2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,42,00,000/- without considering the merits of the case, leading to perversity? 3. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in setting aside the CIT (Appeals) order confirming the assessment order without appreciating the ratio in PCIT vs NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. (SC) and its own judgment in ITO, Ward-5(3), Kolkata vs. M/s. Blessings Commercial Pvt. Ltd.? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the materials placed before the Assessing Officer were voluminous and that the Assessing Officer failed to examine them and conduct an enquiry. The CIT (Appeals) also failed to discuss the correctness of these documents. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue argued that the Tribunal erred by setting aside the CIT (Appeals) order and deleting the addition without considering the merits and by not appreciating relevant precedents.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 68,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

OD–29 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/8/2024 IA No: GA/1/2024 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, KOLKATA VS. YUTHIKA COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD. [PAN : AAACY2332E] BEFORE : THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM And THE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 19th February, 2024 Appearance : Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv. …for appellant Mr. Saurabh Bagaria, Adv. Mr. Rites Goel, Adv. …for respondent The Court : This appeal filed by the Department under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated July 25, 2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) in ITA No. 565/Kol/2018, for the assessment years 2012-13. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration : a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law, in setting aside the order of the CIT (Appeals) who confirmed the addition of Rs. 5,42,00,000/-

2 made under Section 68 of the Act in the assessment order passed under section 143(3) dated March 28, 2015, on the ground that the identity and creditworthiness of the share applicants as well as the genuineness of transactions were proved ? b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the order of the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law to delete the addition of Rs.5,42,00,000/- without considering the merits of the case thereby giving rise to perversity ? c) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the order of the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law to set aside the order of the CIT(A) appeals confirming the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act without appreciating the ratio laid down in the case of PCIT vs NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. [103 taxmann.com 48 (SC)] by Hon’ble Apex Court and also its own judgment in the case of ITO, Ward-5(3), Kolkata vs. M/s. Blessings Commercial Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.271/Kol/2014 for AY 2010-2011 ? We have heard Ms. Smita Das De, learned standing Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Saurabh Bagaria, learned Counsel for the respondent. Learned Tribunal had allowed the assessee’s appeal thereby setting aside the order passed by the CIT (Appeals-2), Kolkata [CIT(A)] dated 23rd January, 2018, which affirmed the assessment order dated 28th March, 2015 passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal has faulted the Assessing Officer in not having examined the materials placed by the assessee which, according to the learned Counsel for the respondent, was voluminous.

3 Furthermore, the Tribunal also faulted the Assessing Officer for not conducting an enquiry into the matter based on the documents produced by the assessee. Further, the Tribunal has held that CIT(A) has also not discussed about the correctness or otherwise of the documents and materials placed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer. In such circumstances, question would be as to what is to be done in the matter. The learned Tribunal, being the last fact finding authority, was well within its jurisdiction while examining those documents to ascertain as to the correctness of the time taken by the assessee with regard to the genuineness of the transaction. As to the identity and creditworthiness of the investors, the Tribunal could have called for a report from the Assessing Officer and upon receipt of such report, examine the same and record its satisfaction that the assessee has been able to prove the identity and the creditworthiness of the investors and the genuineness of the transaction. However, the Tribunal has not done such exercise and merely proceeded to allow the appeal solely on the ground that the Assessing Officer did not consider the materials and documents produced by the assessee nor conduct any enquiry. Thus we are of the view that the matter has to be examined by the Assessing Officer on merits and, therefore, we deem it proper to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed and the order passed by the Tribunal is set aside as well as the order passed by the CIT(A) and the matter

4 stands remanded to the Assessing Officer who shall rehear the matter in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the authorised representative of the assessee. The Assessing Officer shall examine all the documents and the materials which are placed by the assessee and thereafter take a reasoned decision. The substantial questions of law raised by the assessee are left open. The stay application stands disposed of. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM) CHIEF JUSTICE

(HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) SN/tk AR(CR)

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →