CBS STEEL PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6193/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 November 2019AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, in the interest of substantial justice, decided to give the assessee another chance. The appeal was restored to the file of the CIT(A) subject to the assessee depositing Rs. 25,000/- to the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer treated share capital/premium of Rs. 38,700,000/- received by the assessee as unexplained cash credit under Section 68. The CIT(A) upheld this addition. The assessee appealed to the ITAT, arguing the CIT(A) passed the order without proper representation.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of share capital/premium as unexplained cash credit without proper representation from the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI

For Appellant: Shri Sachin Kumar, FCA
For Respondent: Shri Amrit Lal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 04/11/2019

This appeal is preferred by the assessee against order dated 26.8.2016 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, New Delhi {CIT (A)} for assessment year 2012-13. 2. Brief facts of the case are that in this case the return of income was filed declaring a loss of Rs. 112,705,570/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that the assessee had received share capital/premium to the tune of Rs. 38,700,000/-. The AO proceeded to treat the said share capital/premium as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) and added the same to the income of the assessee. On appeal, the Ld. CIT (A) upheld the addition. Now, the assessee is before the ITAT and has challenged the order of the Ld. First Appellate Authority.

3.

At the outset, the Ld. Authorised Representative submitted that the Ld. First Appellate Authority has passed the order and upheld the addition without the issue being properly represented before him. It was pleaded that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given another opportunity before the Ld. CIT (A).

4.

In response, the Ld. Senior Departmental Representative pointed out that several opportunities had been afforded to the assessee by the Ld. First Appellate Authority but he chose to seek adjournment on each occasion and, therefore, the Ld. First Appellate Authority had no option but to decide the case based on the material available on record.

5.

Having heard both the parties and after having gone through the impugned order, it is our considered opinion that in view of substantial justice the assessee should be given another chance. Therefore, we restore the appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT (A). However, this restoration is subject to the assessee depositing an amount of Rs. 25,000/- towards the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund on or before 30th November, 2019. The assessee shall present itself before the Ld. CIT (A) on or before 6th February, 2020 along with the copy of this order and receipt of payment of Rs. 25,000/- towards the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund and the Ld. CIT (A) shall grant him adequate opportunity and decide the issues before him afresh.

6.

In the final result the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →