BRINDAVAN COMMODITIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 7(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2453/KOL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 January 2021AY 2009-103 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the hearing notices were not served on the assessee. Therefore, the issue was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's share capital/premium of Rs. 15,45,15,000/- was added as unexplained cash credits. The CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without addressing the issue on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of share capital/premium as unexplained cash credits was justified and whether the CIT(A) order was passed without proper adjudication and service of notices.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Per Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:- The assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2009-10, arises against the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Kolkata’s order dated 31.01.2017 passed in the case No. 620/CIT(A)-16/KOL/2015-16/W-7(4), involving proceedings under section 147/263/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Brindavan Commodities Pvt. Limited

2.

The assessee’s first and foremost grievance seeks to reverse both the lower authorities action adding its share capital/prfemium of Rs.15,45,15,000/- as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 in the course of assessment and affirmed in the lower appellate proceedings. It is vehemently submitted that the Assessing Officer erred in making addition of Rs.15,45,15,000/- in the assessment in question framed on 31.03.2014 and that the CIT(A)’s order; passed ex parte, has also not dealt with the issue(s) on merits in the light of section 250(6) of the Act requiring framing of the points of determination followed by a detailed adjudication.

3.

Ld. CIT(D.R.) at this stage invited our attention to para 4 at page 2 in the CIT(A)’s order that he had duly sent the corresponding notice(s) of hearing dated 24.08.2016, 10.05.2016 and 02.03.2016 to the assessee. The fact however remains that none of the said hearing notices has been served on the assessee as it is clear from the corresponding lower appellate observation(s). We, therefore, deem it appropriate in this factual backdrop to restore the issue back to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication as per law on merits within three effective opportunities of hearing. The assessee shall itself appear before the CIT(A) on or before 31.08.2021 along with a copy of this order to prove the genuineness as well as creditworthiness of its investors concerned.

4.

The assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. Order pronounced in the open Court on January 22, 2021.

Sd/- Sd/-

1.

(J. Sudhakar Reddy) (Satbeer Singh Godara) Accountant Member Judicial Member Kolkata, the 22 day of January, 2021 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Brindavan Commodities Pvt. Limited Copies to : (1) Brindavan Commodities Pvt. Limited, C/o. RSVPC & Company, 41A, A.J.C. Bose Road, Suite No. 613, 6th Floor, Kolkata-700017

(2) Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(4), Kolkata, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Aayakar Bhavan, Kolkata-700069

(3) Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -16, Kolkata; (4) Commissioner of Income Tax- , Kolkata (5) The Departmental Representative

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →