PRAMOD LAKRA DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RUDRAMUKHI VINTRADE LTD. , KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 136/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 August 2025AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)8 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order in the assessee's own appeal (I.T.A. No.: 2317/KOL/2025) had already been set aside for de novo consideration, with directions to grant opportunity of hearing to both the assessee and the AO. Therefore, the present appeal by the revenue does not survive and is allowed for statistical purposes, allowing the AO to make submissions during the fresh proceedings before the CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s order which partly allowed the assessee's appeal, confirming an addition of Rs. 2.41 Crores (out of Rs. 3.89 Crores) related to unexplained cash credits under Section 68 from alleged shell companies. The assessment was initially reopened under Section 147 read with Section 148 due to information about the routing of funds through shell entities with no business rationale.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in partly granting relief on unexplained cash credits from alleged shell companies; and the maintainability of the revenue's appeal when the underlying CIT(A) order has already been set aside for de novo consideration by the Tribunal in a related appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 250,Section 148,Section 68,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(8)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

order

: 08 August, 2025 ORDER

PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

This appeal filed by the revenue is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2013-14 dated 25.09.2024, which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, dated 25.09.2021.

Sl no Particulars Evidence produced Whether accepted. 1 Bank statement Copy of bank account with Bank statement shows receipt of money showing receipt KVB, Salt Lake branch, during FY 2012-13. But immediately after of money. Kolkota (account no credit of the amount, the amount is 310628), BOB withdrawn leaving a negative cash balance. (0902020000887). A copy of the bank statement of account with KVB is attached herewith. The debits are in the name of companies whose shares are purchased. 2 Explanation for Copy of share bills, sale There is credit entry of Rs 20 lakhs and 25 source of credit bills of entities. lakhs as well as 18 lakhs in the name of in the bank Jalnayan Vinimay Pvt Ltd. Jalnayan has account. been sold 12600 unquoted equity shares for a total consideration of 63 lakhs. Though the assessee has not been able to show a direct link between the sale of shares and receipt of money, still credit is given towards Rs 63 lakhs as money is credited during the year. Similarly in the case of Overtop Vanijya the total sale consideration receivable is Rs 11400000. Out of that bank account shows a credit of Rs 28 lakhs which is given credit. In the case of After Link a credit of Rs 57 lakhs is found out of the total receivable of Rs 1.32 cr. Even though a one to one correlation between sale of shares and credit in the bank account is not proved by the

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →