PANCHMUKHI TRADECOM (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-5(2), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 317/KOL/2020Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 February 2022AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order and did not dispose of the appeal on merits. Such dismissal for non-prosecution is not permissible. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex-parte without considering the merits. The CIT(A) had confirmed an addition of Rs. 9,05,00,000/- made by the AO on account of alleged bogus share capital.

What were the issues?

Whether an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) without considering the merits violates the principles of natural justice. Whether additions on account of share capital can be made in the hands of the company raising the capital.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

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

Before: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Manish Borad

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA [Virtual Court] (Before Sri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member & Sri Manish Borad, Accountant Member) I.T.A. No.: 317/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Panchmukhi Tradecom (P) Ltd................................................Appellant [PAN: AAFCP 7408 M] Vs. ITO, Ward-5(2), Kolkata.......................................................Respondent Appearances by: Sh. Avijit Dey, A/R, appeared on behalf of the Assessee. Sh. David Z. Chawngthu, CIT(D/R), appeared on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : February 17th, 2022 Date of pronouncing the order : February 28th, 2022 ORDER Per Manish Borad, Accountant Member:

This appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year (in short “AY”) 2012-13 is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-16, Kolkata [in short ld. “CIT(A)”] dated 31.10.2019 vide Appeal No. 1468/CIT(A)-16/Kol/2019-20/W-5(2), Kol which is arising out of the assessment order framed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the “Act”) dated 27.03.2015 by ITO, Ward-5(2), Kolkata.

2.

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

“1. For that the ex-parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and, as such, is not sustainable in law.

2. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 9,05,00,000/- made by the A.O. u/s 68, on account of alleged bogus share capital (including share premium) raised by the assessee in the relevant year by wrongly treating the same as undisclosed income.

3.

For that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered that the addition on account of share capital cannot be made in the hands of the company raising the capital in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lovely Exports (P) Ltd 299 ITR 268 (St.) and other legal precedents.

2 I.T.A. No.: 317/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Panchmukhi Tradecom (P) Ltd. 4. The appellant craves leave to add further grounds of appeal or alter the grounds at the time of hearing.”

3. After hearing rival contentions, we find that the ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order. He has not disposed off the appeal on merits. Such dismissal for non-prosecution is not permissible in law.

4.

The ld. D/R submitted that the issue may be restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) as there was violation of principles of natural justice.

5.

Under these circumstances we set aside the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

6.

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

Kolkata, the 28th February, 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 →