MANISH MALL,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. -61, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 134/KOL/2021Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 July 2022AY 2014-152 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 rejected the application for condonation of delay due to lack of cogent reasons. Furthermore, the issue was covered by a High Court decision affirming additions for bogus long-term capital gains.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order, but it was significantly delayed. The assessee did not provide convincing reasons for the delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be admitted despite a significant delay, and whether additions made under Section 68 for bogus long-term capital gains are valid.

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, “B(SMC

Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B(SMC)” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member and Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2014-15 Manish Mall……..........................…......................................……….……Appellant 12A, Shakespeare Sarani, Ground Floor, Kolkata-700071. [PAN:AFUPM7437C] vs. ACIT, Circle-61, Kolkata...……….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances by: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Manas Mondal, Addl. CIT-DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : July 26, 2022 Date of pronouncing the order : July 26, 2022

ORDER

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

1.

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 01.10.2018 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Kolkata [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).

2.

The appeal is time-barred by 865 days. No cogent and convincing reason has been given for condonation of delay, therefore, the application for condonation of delay is rejected. Even, on merits the issue is squarely covered against the assessee by the recent decision of the Calcutta High Court vide common order dated 14.06.2022 in a batch of 90 appeals with a lead case titled as PCIT vs. Swati Bajaj in IA No.GA/2/2022 and Others. The ld. Counsel has submitted that the facts and issue involved in the above appeal of the assessee is identical to that were before the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court vide its decision dated 14.06.2022 (supra) has affirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act in respect of bogus long-term capital gains. In view of this, the appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed.

Assessment Year: 2014-15 Manish Mall

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed.

Kolkata, the 26th July, 2022.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →