A AND M HOME SOLUTION PRIVATE LIMITED. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WD-7(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1121/KOL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 March 2025AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged that the appeal was time-barred by 183 days, but condoned the delay after considering the assessee's petition. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not appeared on several previous hearing dates and also on the current date, despite sufficient opportunities. Considering this attitude as against the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee. The issue in the appeal was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the Income Tax Authorities within sixty days from the date of the order. The receipt of payment was to be produced before the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal held that if the cost was not paid within the prescribed period, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) would stand confirmed. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, subject to these directions.

What were the facts?

The assessee, A & M Home Solution Private Limited, filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2012-13 declaring a total income of Rs. 3,41,475/-. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 83,52,140/- as unexplained unsecured loans under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, sustained this addition. The assessee filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Kolkata Bench. The appeal was time-barred by 183 days, but the delay was condoned. The ITAT noted that the assessee had not appeared on multiple hearing dates, including the current one. The ITAT decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of Rs. 83,52,140/- on account of unexplained cash credit (unsecured loans) is justified, turning on Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 83,52,140/- as unexplained cash credit, which should be deleted. 3. Whether the NFAC ignored the fact that a loan amount of Rs. 67,00,000/- taken in the preceding previous year cannot be added back to the subsequent year's income under Section 68 as unexplained. Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the addition of Rs. 83,52,140/- on account of unexplained cash credit is contrary to law and facts. Specifically, it contended that Rs. 67,00,000/- of the unsecured loan was taken in the preceding previous year and therefore cannot be added back in the current assessment year under Section 68 as unexplained. The assessee sought deletion of the addition. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment records no specific contentions from the revenue's side regarding the merits of the case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH KOLKATA

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Meena, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Hearing: 06.03.2025Pronounced: 06.03.2025

Present for: Appellant by : N o n e Respondent by : Shri Arun Kumar Meena, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 06.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 06.03.2025 O R D E R Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)”] vide order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1049822468(1) dated 16.02.2023 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2012-13.

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Arun Kumar Meena, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.

3. Appeal of the assessee is time barred by 183 days. A separate condonation petition along with an affidavit has been placed on file. After A&M Home Solutions Pvt. Ltd., AY: 2012-13 considering the averments made in the condonation petition and the reasons stated by the Ld. AR for the delay in filing the appeal is convincing and hence, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing.

3. The assessee is a private limited company and filed its return of income for the AY 2012-13 on 24.09.2012 declaring its total income of Rs.3,41,475/-. The Assessing Officer made the addition of Rs.83,52,140/- as unsecured loans and added back to the total income of the assessee u/s. 68 of the Act. On Appeal, Ld. CIT(A) sustained the addition as made by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved assessee is now in appeal before us on the following grounds:

“1. That the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) is contrary to law and the facts of the appellant’s case in so far as it relates to addition on account of unexplained cash credit.

2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has erred in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer regarding the addition of Rs.83,52,140/- made by the learned Assessing Officer on account of unsecured loan received by the appellant as unexplained cash credit and the same should be deleted.

3.

That on the facts and circumstances of the case the NFAC has totally ignored the fact that out of the unsecured loan of Rs.83,52,140/-, the loan amount of Rs.67,00,000/- having been taken in the preceding previous year cannot be added back under section 68 to subsequent year income by claiming them as unexplained.

4.

That the appellant craves leave to add, alter or modify the ground of appeal

any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.”

4. We find from the appeal record that this appeal of the assessee has been fixed several times earlier but on the request of the assessee the case was adjourned. Today, at the time of hearing also none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Since the assessee despite providing sufficient opportunities of hearing before the Tribunal did not present itself in the appellate proceedings, keeping this in mind and also treating this attitude against the principles of natural justice, however, we are of the view that assessee should be granted one more opportunity. This being so, the issue A&M Home Solutions Pvt. Ltd., AY: 2012-13 in this appeal is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs.10,000/- to the Income Tax Authorities under challan 500 within sixty days from the date of this order and the receipt of the same would be produced before the Assessing Officer. Should the assessee not pay the abovementioned cost of Rs. 10,000/- within the prescribed period of sixty days from the date of this order, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) shall stand confirmed.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose subject to above directions.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →