SHEETAL CITYREALTORS PVT LTD (FORMELY KNOWN AS EVERGREEN MERCANTILE PVT LTD),KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-5(3), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1606/KOL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 October 2020AY 2008-093 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities, including the CIT(A), failed to deal with the detailed evidence provided by the assessee. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee's share capital/premium of ₹3,91,00,000/- was treated as unexplained cash credits by the lower authorities. The CIT had directed the AO to verify the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of investors, but the AO allegedly placed the onus back on the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the share capital/premium was correctly treated as unexplained cash credits without proper verification of evidence. Whether the lower authorities complied with the procedural requirements for adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 263,Section 147,Section 148,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “VIRTUAL COURT A” KOLKATA

Before: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

Shri S.M.Surana, Advocate अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/By Appellant Shri Dhrubajyoti Ray, JCIT-SR-DR ��यथ� क� ओर से/By Respondent 01-10-2020 सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing 21-10-2020 घोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S.Godara, Judicial Member:- This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2008-09 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata’s order dated 30.05.2016 passed in case No.1556/CIT(A)-2/Kol/14-15 involving proceedings u/s143(3) r.w.s. 263 r.w.s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Case file(s) perused.

Assessment Year 2008-09 Sheetal Cityrealtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO Wd-5(3), Kol. Page 2 2. We advert to the basic relevant facts pertaining to the sole issue of correctness of both the lower authorities’ action treating assessee’s share capital / premium of ₹3,91,00,000/- as unexplained cash credits during the course of assessment dated 26.03.2014 as upheld in the CIT(A)’s ex parte order; without dealing with the corresponding detailed evidence on record in compliance to sec. 250(6) of the Act requiring framing of points of determination followed by a detailed adjudication.

3.

The assessee is a company engaged in share dealing & investment business. It had filed its original return on 15.07.2008 declaring “nil” income. The same stood processed. The Assessing Officer thereafter formed reason to believe that the assessee taxable income liable to be assessed had escaped assessment. He thus initiated sec. 148 re-opening in motion and completed the corresponding re-assessment on 18.05.2010 determining total income at ₹22,500/- only.

4.

We notice from a perusal of the case file that the CIT thereafter termed the said re-assessment as an erroneous one causing prejudice to the interest of Revenue to exercise his sec. 263 revision jurisdiction vide order dated 28.03.2013 and directed the Assessing Officer to verify the three limb(s) of identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the investor parties qua the assessee’s share application / premium after conducting independent enquiries. Learned departmental representative fails to rebut the clinching fact that the Assessing Officer’s consequential assessment adding the impugned sum as unexplained cash credits had once again put the onus on assessee itself than carrying out the independent enquiries as per the CIT’s original revision direction hereinabove.

Assessment Year 2008-09 Sheetal Cityrealtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO Wd-5(3), Kol. Page 3 5. We also wish to repeat that the CIT’s lower appellate order under challenge had also not dealt with assessee’s detailed evidence forming part the case file in support the genuineness / creditworthiness of the share application / premium. We therefore deem it appropriate to restore the sole issue back to Assessing Officer to frame afresh assessment within three effective opportunities of hearing in compliance to the CIT’s original revision direction as per law.

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →