M/S. SWARNALAXMI DEALCOM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 7(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1302/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 January 2025AY 2012-2013Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had noted the assessee's barter-basis contention but failed to address it, even after sending documents for a remand report which the AO did not furnish. To ensure justice, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo verification, instructing the AO to consider the fresh evidences and provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an addition of ₹2,06,20,000 made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) under Section 68 for unexplained share capital/premium for AY 2012-13. The assessee contended that the shares were issued on a barter basis for investments in other companies, not for cash, hence Section 68 should not apply. The AO made the addition due to non-compliance with summons under Section 131 and failure to produce directors.

What were the issues?

Whether Section 68 of the Income Tax Act applies to shares issued on a barter basis in lieu of investments, and whether proper verification and opportunity of hearing were provided to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 131

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, KOLKATA

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Jalan, AR
For Respondent: Shri Amuldeep Kaur, DR
Hearing: 18.12.2024Pronounced: 15.01.2025

O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 28.05.2024 for the AY 2012-13.

2.

The only issue raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal is against the confirmation of addition of ₹2,06,20,000/- by ld. CIT (A) as made by the ld. AO on account of share capital/ share premium being unexplained u/s 68 of the Act.

3.

The ld. AR at the outset, submitted that on page no.2 at para 1 of the assessment order the ld. AO noted that the assessee appeared before the ld. ITO, Ward-12(3), Kolkata and filed the details as asked for by the ld. Assessing Officer, however, did not complied with the summons issued u/s 131 of the Act and made addition of

4.

The ld. DR on the other hands relied on the orders of the ld. lower authorities and submitted that assessee has failed to file any substantive evidences to prove its contention before the authorities below and therefore, the appeal of the assessee may kindly be dismissed.

5.

Having heard the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the ld. CIT (A) in para no.6.2.1 has

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 15.01.2025.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →