QUANTAM STOCK BROKING PVT. LTD.,,NORTH TWENTY FOUR PARGANAS vs. ITO, WARD 14(1), , KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 550/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 August 2025AY 2014-15Bench: Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy (Vice President)5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted the assessee's claim of having submitted all necessary documents to the AO and CIT(Appeals) which were not considered. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the revenue authorities and remitted the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) to re-examine the documents and provide the assessee with another opportunity of being heard, while cautioning the assessee to cooperate.

What were the facts?

For AY 2014-15, the assessee, Quantum Stock Broking Pvt. Ltd., initially declared an income of Rs. 7,472/-. The case was reopened under Section 148 based on an Investigation Wing report, leading to an addition of Rs. 26,00,000/- received from Dakshi Trade Pvt. Ltd., which the AO treated as unexplained funds due to layering and lack of creditworthiness. The CIT(Appeals) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte as no submissions were filed.

What were the issues?

Whether the lower authorities erred in confirming an addition under reopening proceedings and dismissing the assessee's appeal ex-parte without properly considering submitted evidence, thereby denying a fair opportunity of hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 143(2)

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: 2014-2015 Quantum Stock Broking Pvt. Limited,.………Appellant B.L. No. 10, Holding No. 11, Jagatdal, Dist. 24-Parganas (North)-743125, West Bengal [PAN:AAACQ0689E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-14(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances by: Shri Muskan Shetia, C.A., appeared on behalf of the assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, JCIT, Sr. D.R., appeared on behalf of the Revenue Date of concluding the hearing: June 24, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order: August 25, 2025 O R D E R

The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 28.01.2025 passed for Assessment Year 2014-2015.

(A.Y. 2014-2015) Quantum Stock Broking Pvt. Limited 2. Facts in brief are that the assessee is a Private Limited Company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 to carry on the business. The assesese filed its return of income electronically on 30.09.2014 declaring an income of Rs.7,472/-. The ld. Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 of the Act dated 31.03.2021 for reopening the case on the report of Investigation Wing. Thereafter notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 24.11.2021 without issuance of statutory notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act and reasons for reopening the case. The assessee in its reply dated 09.12.2021 sought reasons for reopening against the said notice u/s 142(1). The ld. Assessing Officer issued another notice under section 142(1) of the Act on 02.03.2022 and in compliance, the assesese submitted the supporting documents including bank statements with explanation of credit entries, loan confirmations, ITR-V, tax computation, audited financial statements etc. The ld. Assessing Officer provided reasons for reopening along with notice u/s 142(1) of the Act that the assessee was in receipt of Rs.26,00,000/- from Dakshi Trade Pvt. Ltd. during FY 2013-14, which has escaped assessment as the assessee submitted that there was no receipt of any amount from Dakshi Trade Pvt. Ltd. A show-cause notice was issued to the assessee asking why Rs.26,00,000/- should not be added to the total income. The assessee was asked to provide confirmation from the Bank about certain transactions reflected in the bank statement, but in the reply of assessee, no date/year of receipt of Rs.26,00,000/- was mentioned. As the assessee did not show the transaction to the extent of Rs.26,00,000/- made with M/s. Dakshi Trade Pvt. Ltd. during FY 2012-13 but layering of (A.Y. 2014-2015) Quantum Stock Broking Pvt. Limited funds through multiple conduits having no genuine business activities, no creditworthiness, no other nature of transactions has been found other than just transferring the fund on the very same day, the ld. Assessing Officer assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.26,07,470/- .

3.

On being aggrieved, the assesese preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte by mentioning that the appellant has not furnished any written submission or documentary evidence in support of its grounds of appeal challenging the addition. The appellant has also not submitted any copy of its written submission or documentary evidence filed during the assessment proceedings. The onus lies on the appellant to support any claim by bringing in cogent documentary evidence but the appellant has not even filed written submission in support of its grounds of appeal despite several opportunities given.

4. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that the assessee filed all the documents, i.e. bank statements with explanation of credit entries, loan confirmations, ITR-V, tax computation, audited financial statements etc. in support of its claim, but ld. Assessing Officer as well as ld. CIT(Appeals) did not consider it and dismissed the appeal. He, therefore, prayed before the Bench to set aside both the orders of revenue authorities.

(A.Y. 2014-2015) Quantum Stock Broking Pvt. Limited 5. On the other hand, it was the submission of the ld. Departmental Representative that during the appellate proceedings, so many opportunities were provided to the assessee to substantiate its claim, but no response was given from the side of assessee-company. Therefore, getting no other alternatives, ld. CIT(Appeals) passed his order ex-parte dismissing the appeal of the assessee.

6.

I have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. The ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte as the assessee did not furnish any written submission or documentary evidence in support of its grounds of appeal challenging the addition in spite of several opportunities given. Therefore, considering the above finding of the ld. CIT(Appeals), I am of the view that it is a fit case to set aside the orders passed by the revenue authorities since the assessee has filed relevant documents before the Tribunal. Therefore, I set aside the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) and remit the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) to examine the documents after providing one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same breath, I also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) failing which the Ld. CIT(Appeals) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merits of the case, based on the materials available on the record. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee in the appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.

(A.Y. 2014-2015) Quantum Stock Broking Pvt. Limited 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 25/08/2025.

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →