FLOWTOP CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 965/KOL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 September 2022AY 2012-134 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide any documentary evidence to explain the source of the share capital and premium. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 was upheld.

What were the facts?

The assessee company received share capital and premium amounting to Rs. 10,04,50,000/-. The Assessing Officer treated this as an unexplained cash credit and made an addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

What were the issues?

Whether the share capital and premium received by the assessee can be treated as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when the assessee fails to provide supporting evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 143(3),Section 144,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: DR. MANISH BORAD & SONJOY SARMA

order

: September 29th, 2022 आदेश ORDER

PER SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year (in short “AY”) 2012-13 is directed against the order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the “Act”) by ld. Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals)-1, Kolkata [in I.T.A. No.: 965/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Flowtop Constructions Pvt. Ltd. short ld. “CIT(A)”] dated 28.02.2018 which is arising out of the assessment order framed u/s 143(3)/144 of the Act dated 19.03.2015.

2.

The assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising the following grounds:

That the appellant had preferred an appeal before the CIT(A)-1, being aggrieved by an order of Assessing Officer Ward-1(1). The point of contention was the treatment of share capital including share premium obtained by the appellant, which was treated as unexplained cash credit and taxed under the provisions of section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The case was fixed for hearing on 19.02.2018 on which the appellant failed to appear due to unintentional inadvertence. The Commissioner of Income Tax (A) chose to dispose the appeal ex-parte due to this failure on the part of the assessee and dismissed the appeal without examining the facts and circumstances of the case. Under the circumstances, the appellant has no option but to pray before your kind self. The appellant seeks leave to present the detailed paper book before the date of hearing.

3. When the case was called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Perusal of the records shows that the case has been listed for hearing first time on 10.08.2022 and thereafter none appeared on 10.08.2022 and today i.e. 19.09.2022. Notices have also been sent through registered post on multiple occasions but it ended up in a futile exercise. It seems that the assessee is either not interested in pursuing the appeal or it has no material to place before this Tribunal in support of its grounds. We, therefore, decide to adjudicate the issue raised in the appeal on merits of the case.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →