M/S KOHINOOR MERCHANTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-10(3), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 42/KOL/2022Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 December 2022AY 2012-135 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as it was based on independent information. The addition of estimated commission income was also upheld as the transactions appeared to be for earning commission rather than genuine business.

What were the facts?

The assessee company declared a low income for AY 2012-13. The AO reopened the assessment based on information about a large sum received in the assessee's bank account, suspecting it was for earning commission.

What were the issues?

Whether the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was valid and whether the addition of estimated commission income was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA

Before: Dr. Manish Borad

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘एसएमसी’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA डॉ�टर मनीष बोरड, लेखा सद�य के सम� Before Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member Assessment year: 2012-13 M/s Kohinoor Merchants Pvt. Ltd........................................................…… …. Appellant 28/1B, Bhattacharjee Para Road, Kolkata-700063. [PAN:AACCK8051A] vs. ITO, Ward-10(3), Kolkata...................…....................................................….. Respondent Appearances by: None appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. CIT, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : December 13, 2022 Date of pronouncing the order : December 21, 2022 आदेश / ORDER 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 National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short ld. “CIT(A)”] dated 26.11.2021 which is arising out of the assessment order framed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 26.12.2019.

2.

When the case was called, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. A perusal of the appeal file shows that even after providing opportunity, the assessee failed to appear. It seems that assessee is not interested to pursue the appeal. We, therefore, decide to hear this appeal with the assistance of the ld. Departmental Representative and adjudicate the same on merits.

Assessment year: 2012-13 M/s Kohinoor Merchants Pvt. Ltd 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. For that the order passed by the Ld. A. O. u/s 143(3)/147 of the I. T. Act 1961 is erroneous, bad in law and liable to be cancelled or annulled.

2. For that from the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. AO had erred in reopening of the assessment proceedings u/s 147 of the I T Act.

3.

For that the Ld. A. O. had erred in treating the normal business transaction of the company done via normal banking channel as bogus and accommodation entry not being the beneficiary and to prevent revenue leakage 0.5 percent commission on bank credit entries of Rs.6,00,00,000/- which is Rs.3,00,000 /- has been added to the total income of the appellant.

4.

For that the addition made for an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- is liable to be deleted.

5.

For that appellant craves to leave, alter, modify or add any of the grounds of appeal

at the time of hearing or before.”

3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company. Income of Rs.14,080/- was declared in the return filed on 07.12.12 for A.Y 2012-13. Based on credible information that a sum of Rs.6,00,00,000/- was received by the assessee from Sri Shyam Enterprise to its bank account held with Indian Bank and accordingly notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 28.03.2019. In compliance, the assessee filed the return on 04.04.2019 showing income of Rs.14,080/-. This was followed by serving of notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act asking the assessee to explain source of the alleged receipt to which reply was submitted. After considering the reply, the ld. A.O came to the conclusion that the transactions in the bank account held with the assessee were of inflow and outflow of fund and the transactions were not with the objective of profitability but to earn commission. The ld. A.O accordingly estimated a commission income of Rs.3,00,000/-

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →