Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an income return, which was processed. Subsequently, the AO received information regarding bogus long-term/short-term capital gains (LTCG/STCL) from the DIT and issued a notice under Section 148 of the Act. The AO treated the sale consideration as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act.
Held
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) failed to consider the assessee's written submissions and incorrectly stated that no explanation was filed. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and remitted the matter back for fresh examination.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(Appeals) erred by not considering the assessee's submissions and whether the addition made by the AO under Section 68 of the Act was justified.
Sections Cited
139, 143(1), 148, 143(2), 142(1), 68, 250, 147
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-(KZ)
Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Rajkumari Dhanuka,…………….………….…Appellant 113, Park Street, Kolkata-700016 [PAN:ADUPD7020N] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-32(2), Kolkata, 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Appearances by: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, JCIT, appeared on behalf of the Revenue Date of concluding the hearing: December 08, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order: December 31, 2025 O R D E R
The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of Id. Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bhubaneswar dated 22.08.2025 passed for Assessment Year 2012-2013.
Facts in brief are that the assessee-appellant had submitted the return of income originally u/s 139 on 01.08.2012 declaring total income of Rs. 13,71,975/- which comprised of Rs.7,03,927/- being amount of STCG. The return was processed u/s 143(1). Subsequently, the A.O. received information from the DIT 1 (A.Y. 2012-2013) Rajkumari Dhanuka (Mumbai) on 28.03.2019 about certain scrip which included Devine Multimedia (I) Ltd. being used for generating bogus LTCG/STCL. As per the information received, the entities involved in the transaction are the syndicate members, the brokers, the entry operators. The beneficiary receives the number of shares at a nominal rate. This leg of the transaction mostly is off-line and the prices of the shares are rigged gradually through the brokers. Based upon this information and also the list of beneficiaries which included appellant’s name having received an amount of Rs.23,45,000/- the A.O. proceeded to issue notice u/s 148 of the Act. The appellant submitted the return of income declaring therein the same income as originally returned. Notices u/s 143(2) and u/s 142(1) as well as the show cause notices were issued by the A.O. which were duly complied with. It was explained that the appellant had acquired 148930 shares of M/s Kale Films (formerly known as Devine Multimedia India Ltd.) on 09.11.2011 for Rs.48,93,792/- and out of which 50000 shares were sold on 27.03.2012 for Rs.23,39,180/- (net) after STT and other charges etc. The transactions resulted in STCG of Rs.6,96,196/- on 50000 shares and the residue being 98930 shares were carried over to next year at the cost price of Rs.32,50,808/-. The A.O. while treating the transaction of sale of shares as bogus proceeded to take the sale consideration of Rs.23,45,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and deducted therefrom the amount of STCG of Rs.6,96,196/- already offered for tax while arriving at the difference of Rs. 16,84,804/- having been treated as unexplained cash credit included in the total income.
(A.Y. 2012-2013) Rajkumari Dhanuka 3. On being aggrieved, the assesese preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The sole issue for adjudication is the addition of Rs.16,84,804/- made by the ld. Assessing Officer as explained in the assessment order under section 68 of the Act. But ld. Addl/JCIT(Appeals) found that the assessee did not submit any written explanation before the ld. Assessing Officer. The ld. Assessing Officer while treating the transaction of sale of shares as bogs proceeded to take the sale consideration of Rs.23,45,000/- as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act and deducted there from the amount of STCG of Rs.6,96,196/- already offered for tax while arriving at the difference of Rs.16,84,804/- having been treated as unexplained cash credit included in the total income. The ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) did not consider the submission of the assessee and passed the order under section 250 of the Act dismissing the grounds of appeal of the assessee.
4. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. At the outset, it was the submission of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) ought to have quashed the proceeding initiated under section 147 of the Act since the information provided by the ld. DIT (Investigation), Mumbai itself was half baked as sent in the report and that the ld. Assessing Officer acted to reopen the cases on the basis of the directions contained in the report. The ld. Assessing Officer did not give any valid reason to confirm that the assessee has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act and issued notice under section 148 without jurisdiction and ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) did not consider the submission of the (A.Y. 2012-2013) Rajkumari Dhanuka assesse and passed order. Therefore, the ld. Counsel prayed before the Bench to set aside the order of ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) and remit the matter back to the file of ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) with a direction to pass the order afresh after considering the submission made by the assessee and the relevant material available on record.
On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative has not raised any objection if the matter is remitted back to the file of ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) to decide it afresh.
I have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted fact that the assessee has filed her written submission before the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals), but the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) has not looked into the submissions made by the assessee and he has mentioned in his order in para 4 that the assessee has not filed any written explanation. The said fact is not correct. By considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of natural justice and fair play, I set aside the order passed by the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) and remit the matter back to the file of ld. Addl/JCIT(Appeals) with a direction to re-examine the issues afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and dispose of on merit considering whether the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 147 of the Act is justified or not. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee in the appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes.
(A.Y. 2012-2013) Rajkumari Dhanuka 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 31/12/2025.