VANANCHAL PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,HAZARIBAUG vs. DCIT- CIRCLE -2(3)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3477/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 June 2022AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not cooperate with the lower authorities and the Tribunal. However, in the interest of natural justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity before the CIT(A) subject to payment of costs.

What were the facts?

The assessee company received share premium of Rs. 2,43,45,000/-. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment and made an addition for this amount. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition and the validity of reopening.

What were the issues?

Whether the reopening of assessment was valid and whether the addition on account of share premium was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” Bench, Mumbai

For Respondent: Shri Vranda U. Matkari
Hearing: 27.06.2022Pronounced: 27.06.2022

The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 19.3.2018 passed by learned CIT(A) confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer with regard to share premium received by the assessee amounting to Rs. 2,43,45,000/-. The assessee is also aggrieved by the decision of learned CIT(A) in confirming the validity of reopening of the assessment.

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee. From the order sheet noting, we find that the assessee is not responding to any of the notices set by the Registry by registered post. Hence, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex- parte, without presence of the assessee.

3.

We have heard learned Departmental Representative and perused the records. We noticed that the assessee is a builder and it filed its return of income for the year under consideration declaring loss of Rs. 7.69 crores. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 12.3.2013

2 M/s. Vananchal Properties Pvt. Ltd. assessing total income at Rs. 84,676/-. Subsequently the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act on 25.3.2015, wherein he made addition of share premium amount of Rs.2,43,45,000/- received by the assessee during the year under consideration.

4.

We also notice that the assessee did not appear before Ld CIT(A) and hence, the learned CIT(A) passed order ex-parte confirming the assessment order. Aggrieved by the order passed by Ld CIT(A), the assessee has filed this appeal before us.

5.

We have heard learned Departmental Representative and perused the record. We noticed that the assessee is not extending due cooperation in disposing of the appeal, which is evident from the fact that learned CIT(A) was constrained to pass the order ex-parte and further the assessee is not appearing before the Tribunal also. However, in the interest of natural justice, we are of the view that the assessee may be provided with one more opportunity for presenting its case before learned CIT(A). Since the assessee was not co-operating with the Ld CIT(A), we are of the view that the opportunity may be given to the assessee by imposing a cost, which shall act as deterrent to the assessee to duly co-operate with Ld CIT(A). Accordingly, we impose a cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) upon the assessee, which shall be paid to the credit of Income Tax Department as ‘other fees’ within two months from the date of receipt of this order.

6.

Subject to the payment of above said cost, we set aside the order passed by learned CIT(A) and restore all the issues to his file for adjudicating them afresh, after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

3 M/s. Vananchal Properties Pvt. Ltd.

7.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 27.06.2022.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →