M/S RSV ISPAT PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-12(3), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2497/KOL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 July 2020AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that no proper notice of hearing was served and that the documentary evidence filed by the assessees was not considered. Therefore, the issue of share application/premium requires fresh factual verification by the Assessing Officer.

What were the facts?

The assessees' share application/premium amounts were treated as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) orders affirmed the Assessing Officer's action without proper notice of hearing to the assessees.

What were the issues?

Whether the share application/premium amounts were correctly treated as unexplained cash credits and if the assessment proceedings were conducted fairly without proper notice and consideration of evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 143(3),Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “D Virtual Court” KOLKATA

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

Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate & आवेदक क" ओर से/By Assessee Shri Sunil Surana, Advocate Shri Jayanta Khanra, JCIT, SR-DR राज#व क" ओर से/By Respondent 17-06-2020 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 22-07-2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S.Godara, Judicial Member:- These two assessees’ appeal(s) for assessment year 2012-13 arise against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-17 & 4, Kolkata’s separate orders dated 07.02.2019 and 27.03.2019 passed in case Nos.254/CIT(A)-17/Kol/17-18 & 882/ & 2497/Kol/2019 Assessment Year 2012-13 Nice Commodities Ltd & M/s RSV Ispat Pvt.Ltd. Vs ITO Wd-1(2) & 12(3), Kol. Page 2 CIT(A)-4/15-16 involving proceedings u/s143(3) r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard Shri Subash Agarwal and Shri Sunil Surana learned representatives and Shri Jayanta Khanra, JCIT appearing at the Revenue’s behest. Case file(s) perused.

2.

It appears at the outset that the CIT(A)’s order(s) under challenge in both these cases have affirmed the Assessing Officer’s identical action treating the assessees’ share application / premium amount(s) of ₹1,01,50,000/- and ₹3,16,00,000/-; respectively as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act after alleging lack of genuineness and creditworthiness thereof. A perusal of the CIT(A)’s order(s) indicates that there had not any actual service of notice(s) of hearing to either of the two assessees’. And also that although they had filed detailed documentary evidence during the course of corresponding scrutiny assessment(s), the same had nowhere been considered by either of the two Assessing Officer(s). We therefore are of the view that the instant identical issue of the assessees’ share application / premium requires afresh factual verification at the Assessing Officers’ end. We order accordingly. The assessees are also directed to discharge their onus within three effective opportunities of hearing in consequential proceedings before the respective Assessing Officers.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →