Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee company invested Rs. 83,38,500/- in the shares of M/s. Raghuvir Exim Ltd. during the assessment year 2012-13. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition for this amount, which was upheld by the CIT(A).
Held
The Tribunal held that the details and evidences filed by the assessee were not considered by the AO and CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO for proper verification of evidence and to grant an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the AO and CIT(A) failed to consider the evidence provided by the assessee, and if the reassessment was based on valid grounds.
Sections Cited
147, 69, 143(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH
Before: Dr. BRR Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble
आदेश/ORDER
Per Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member:
This is an appeal filed against the order dated 10-02- 2025 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for assessment year 2012-13.
The grounds of appeal
are as under:-
1. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in setting aside issue to the file of Ld. AO for denovo assessment, he ought to have decided the issue considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
Viva Style & Fashion (India) Ltd., A.Y. 2012-13 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on fact in se upholding an addition of Rs. 79,59,625/- made by Ld. AO u/s 69 of the Act.”
Additional Grounds of Appeal “1. The Ld.AO erred in law as well as on facts in reopening assessment u/s 147 on invalid, insufficient, incorrect and vague reasons recorded for reopening without any independent application of mind and on borrowed satisfaction.”
3. The assessee company filed return of income on 05-02- 2013 declaring total income at Rs. 83,960/-. It was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act on 23-03-2013. Information was received on 31-03-2015 that during the case of assessment proceedings in the the case of M/s. Raghuvir Exim Ltd. for assessment year 2012-13, it was observed that M/s. Viva Style and Fashion (India) Ltd. had invested an amount of Rs. 83,38,500/- in purchase of shares of M/s. Raghuvir Exim Ltd. for assessment year 2012-13. On verification of the return of income filed by the assessee, it is seen that the assessee has shown investment of Rs. 3,07,09,625/- in unquoted shares for assessment year 2011- 12 and shown investment of Rs. 3,10,85,500/- in unquoted shares during the assessment year 2012-13. Thus, the increase in investment of Rs. 83,38,500/- during assessment year 2012- 13 is Rs. 3,78,875/- only as per the balance sheet filed as against investment of Rs. 83,38,500/- being made for purchase of shares of M/s. Raghuvir Exim Ltd.. After recording the reasons, the statutory notices were issued and the assessee filed its reply undated to the Assessing Officer. But at the time of assessment proceedings as well as before the CIT(A), the evidences submitted before the authorities were not taken into account. Thus, the addition was made to that extent.
Viva Style & Fashion (India) Ltd., A.Y. 2012-13 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
The ld. A.R. submitted that both the authorities have not considered the details/evidences filed before the authorities, the matter may be remanded back to the file of Assessing Officer for proper verification of the details and give proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The ld. D.R. relied upon the order of the CIT(A).
We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that though the details were filed before the authorities, the same was not taken into account by the Assessing Officer as well as by the CIT(A). Therefore, it will be appropriate to remand this matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper verification of the evidences and adjudicate the same on merit. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.