RUDRAMUKHI VINTRADE LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2317/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 May 2025AY 2013-2014Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had selectively considered certain transactions and failed to apply consistent principles, leading to an unsustainable approach. Therefore, the appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee's income was assessed at Rs. 3,89,00,000/- after reopening the assessment, based on the AO's finding that the assessee provided accommodation entries to shell companies. The CIT(A) upheld part of the addition, considering certain transactions as unexplained cash credits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred by selectively considering transactions and failing to apply consistent principles to similar transactions, thereby violating principles of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 148,Section 250,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(4)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 ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

order

: May 7th, 2025 ORDER

PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee 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 Kolkota (account no credit of the amount, the amount is 310628), BOB withdrawn leaving a negative cash balance.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 taxpayer, considering the bank statement credit for Rs 1.48 cr is given.

4.

The request for cross examination of the accommodation entry provider was not considered necessary by the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has also considered the judicial pronouncements in the cases mentioned below: i) CIT v. P. Mohanakala 291 ITR 278 (SC) ii) Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) iii) Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) iv) CIT Vs Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC)

7.

We have considered the submissions made. Considering the totality of facts and the submissions made and in the interest of justice and fair play, we are of the view that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be remitted back to him for deciding afresh all the issues including the issues raised before us and after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee as it is alleged by the assessee that the Ld. CIT(A) has accepted partial credits for certain transactions but has failed to apply consistent principle on similar other transactions and the selective approach is unsustainable and fails to appreciate the appellant’s compliance and transparent disclosure throughout the proceedings. The Ld. AO shall also be given an opportunity of being heard and a remand report may be called for, if required, as some of the companies are said to be struck off companies as per the RoC’s

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →