Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed its return for AY 2012-13. The case was later reopened, and an addition of Rs. 5,25,00,000/- was made by the AO on account of unexplained share application money under Section 68. The CIT(A) sustained this addition.
Held
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the CIT(A) failed to consider detailed submissions filed by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) properly considered the assessee's detailed submissions before sustaining the addition, and whether the reassessment proceedings were initiated by a jurisdictional officer.
Sections Cited
143(1), 143(3), 148, 142(1), 144, 147, 68, 127
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI “D” BENCH : MUMBAI
Before: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV & SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE
Assessment Year : 2012-13 Metallium Impex Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, 101, Gagangiri Tower, Ward-5(2)(3), 25/29, Dr. Deshmukh Lane, vs. 566, Aayakar Bhavan, V.P. Road, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400004. Mumbai-400020. PAN : AAACM5162E (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri M.S. Mathuria For Revenue : Shri Annavaram Kosuri Date of Hearing : 12-06-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 18-06-2025 O R D E R PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [„Ld.CIT(A)‟], dated 27-12-2024, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13, wherein the assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:
“1.On the facts and in law, learned CIT (Appeals) [NFAC], Delhi has erred in dismissing the appeal and sustenance of impugned addition of Rs.5,25,00,000/- made by the AO without taking due cognizance of detail submissions made on the point of facts and law and judgments/decisions cited and relied on by the appellant since 08.12.2017 till passing of impugned appeal order. 2.On the facts and in law, impugned order may kindly be set-aside under the provisions of the IT Act, 1961.”
Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee has originally filed its return of income on 12-09-2012 declaring total income at Rs. 7,35,810/-, which was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟) and thereafter subject to regular assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act which was completed on 31-03-2015, accepting the returned income. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was reopened and notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 01-04-2016. Thereafter, after issuance of notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act calling for the necessary information/documentation, assessment was completed u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act wherein the AO brought to tax a sum of Rs. 5,25,00,000/- received by the assessee as share application money as un-explained and deemed to be income of the assessee u/s. 68 of the Act. The assessee thereafter carried the matter in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who has since sustained the order of the AO. Against the said order, the assessee is in appeal before us.
During the course of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal and sustaining the addition of Rs. 5,25,00,000/- without taking into consideration the detailed submissions filed by the assessee. In this regard our reference was drawn to the submissions dt. 08-12-2017 filed by the assessee with the office of the Ld.CIT(A)-10, Mumbai containing 826 pages which are available as part of the assessee‟s paper Book filed before us. It was submitted that the detailed factual and legal submissions were made before the Ld.CIT(A). However, the Ld.CIT(A) has failed to consider the submissions so filed by the assessee and has sustained the order of the AO. It was submitted that the assessee has challenged the order of the AO on account of both legal and factual merits of the case. It was submitted that it was brought to the notice of the Ld. CIT(A) that the notice u/s. 148 of the Act has been issued by the non-jurisdictional ITO Ward-5(3)(2) wherein the re-assessment order has been passed by the ITO, Ward-5(2)(3) and such issuance of notice and subsequent transfer of matter to the jurisdictional ITO without any order u/s. 127 of the Act was bad in law. It was further brought to the notice of the Ld.CIT(A) that since no notice has been issued by the jurisdictional AO, there is no basis for sustaining the order passed by the AO. However, the Ld.CIT(A) has failed to consider the same and has passed the impugned order confirming the findings of the AO. It was further submitted before the Ld.CIT(A) that the matter relating to the share application money and share premium was duly examined thoroughly during the original assessment proceedings and necessary documentation was submitted before the Ld.CIT(A) that the AO has examined the matter and it was submitted that it is clearly a case of change of opinion by the AO where the matter has already been examined in the original proceedings and again the Ld.CIT(A) has failed to take into consideration the submissions so filed by the assessee. It was accordingly submitted that the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) to consider the submissions of the assessee and decide the matter afresh.
Per contra, the Ld.DR was heard, who was unable to controvert the submissions so made by the Ld.AR that the assessee has filed the submissions dt. 08-12-2017 before the Ld.CIT(A) and there is no finding by the ld CIT(A) considering the submissions so filed. On the remand, he didn‟t specifically objected where the matter is set-aside to the file of the ld CIT(A).
After hearing both the parties and considering the material available on record, we find merit in the contention advanced by the Ld.AR that the assessee has filed the submissions dt. 08-12-2017 before the Ld.CIT(A) and the same have apparently not been taken into consideration by the Ld.CIT(A) while passing the impugned order. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be granted one more opportunity to represent its case before the Ld.CIT(A). Consequently, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for decide the same as per law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
All the contentions as so claimed by the Ld.AR which have been raised are left open and not adjudicated upon as we have set-aside the matter and we leave it for the Ld.CIT(A) to decide the same as per law where the assessee can demonstrate that the same have been taken as part of its grounds of appeal before the Ld.CIT(A).
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.