Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(KZ) & Shri Rajesh Kumar
Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ):- The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Kolkata dated 16.01.2019 passed for A.Y. 2012-13.
Assessment Year: 2012-2013 M/s. Lifewood Infotech Pvt. Limited 2. The Revenue has taken three grounds of appeal, out of them Ground No. 3 is a general ground, which does not call for recording of any specific finding.
3. Grounds No. 1 & 2 are inter-connected with each other. In these grounds, grievance of the Revenue is that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.9,91,00,000/-, which was added by the ld. Assessing Officer with the aid of section 68. We have sent repeated notices to the assessee, but every time the notices returned back. Therefore, we proceed ex-parte qua the assessee.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed its return of income on 25.08.2012 disclosing total income of Rs.474/-. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment and a notice under section 143(2) was issued and served upon the assessee. The ld. Assessing Officer has passed an assessment order under section 143(3) and made an addition of Rs.9,91,00,000/-. It is a very brief and sketchy assessment order. We deem it appropriate to reproduce the complete assessment order, which reads as under:-
Assessment Year: 2012-2013 M/s. Lifewood Infotech Pvt. Limited
Assessment Year: 2012-2013 M/s. Lifewood Infotech Pvt. Limited
On appeal, ld. CIT(Appeals) has deleted this addition. Though the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) is running into 11 pages. But in these 11 pages, he has reproduced the parts of the judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Jatia
Assessment Year: 2012-2013 M/s. Lifewood Infotech Pvt. Limited Investment Company –vs.- CIT reported in 206 ITR 718 and the order of ITAT in from pages no. 4 to 11. Apart from this reproduction of these two orders his own devotion to the issue is only in two paragraphs. In Paragraphs no. 2 to 6, he has briefly mentioned the facts about filing of return, issuance of notice under section 143(2) and 142(1), grounds of appeal raised by the assessee and reproduction of section 68 of the Income Tax Act. Thereafter his finding starts from paragraphs no.7 and 13. In between, he has reproduced the judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court and the order of ITAT. The relevant paragraphs no. 7 & 13 are reproduced hereunder:-
“7. In other words, no amount has been credited to the books of accounts of the assessee for purchase of shares. It was adjusted against investments made. In other words, the share application was separate. Investment which had been made had been adjusted. The share capital was not issued on receipt of any cash. Shares were issued for consideration other than cash in lieu of assessee-company making investment any shares in some other company”.
“13. Therefore, going by the decision of the Hon’ble Tribunal the Calcutta High Court, Madras High Court as well as the facts of the case since there was no infusion of cash for purchase of shares and that sum cannot be held as being credited to the account of the assessee, no addition can be made u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In view of the above, addition made in Grounds of Appeal No. 1 to 3 are deleted”.
We have gone through both the orders, but unable to appreciate what is the nature of transaction and what are the facts on the record.
It appears that ld. CIT(Appeals) has deleted the addition by observing that the assessee has not received cash on account of share application
Assessment Year: 2012-2013 M/s. Lifewood Infotech Pvt. Limited money, rather it has adjusted these sale of shares against some investments made earlier. It is not specifically discernable what was the investment, which is the investor company when investment was made etc. It is also pertinent to observe that the ld. Assessing Officer was also required to verify the nature of investment, the nature of character of the company, who allowed to have made investment.
Before us, it appears that the assessee-company is a paper company.
Nobody has taken the litigation seriously, i.e. the ld. Assessing Officer as well as ld. CIT(Appeals). The ld. 1st Appellate Authority has erred in adjusting the facts of this case with ratio of law laid down in some other judgement. The impugned orders are not sustainable on account of non-speaking orders. Therefore, we set aside both the orders and restore this issue to the file of ld. Assessing Officer for re- adjudication. The ld. Assessing Officer is directed to collect complete facts and discuss lucidly in the order required to be passed by him after this restoration.
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on November 04, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajesh Kumar) (Rajpal Yadav) Accountant Member Vice-President (KZ) Kolkata, the 4th day of November, 2022 Copies to : (1) Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069
Assessment Year: 2012-2013 M/s. Lifewood Infotech Pvt. Limited (2) M/s. Lifewood Infotech Pvt. Limited, 7/1A, Grant Lane, Kolkata-700012 (3) Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Kolkata;