M/S. LARIGO INVESTMENT PVT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-3(1), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 450/KOL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 July 2020AY 2010-112 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order did not consider the relevant factual and legal issues and that the Revenue had not rebutted the assessee's claim of non-service. Therefore, the assessee deserved another opportunity before the CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The CIT(A) passed an ex parte order affirming the AO's action of treating share capital/premium of Rs. 65,00,000/- as lacking genuineness. The assessee contended that there was no proof of service for the multiple hearing notices issued by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order passed ex parte was valid without proper service of notice, and whether the addition under Section 68 was justified without considering the assessee's submissions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 148,Section 147,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D”

Before: SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, V.P & SHRI S. S. GODARA, JM

For Appellant: Shri Shikha Agarwal, A/R
Hearing: 08/06/2020Pronounced: 10/07/2020

Appellant by : Shri Shikha Agarwal, A/R Respondent by : Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT सुनवाईक�तार�ख/ Date of Hearing : 08/06/2020 घोषणाक�तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement : 10/07/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2010-11 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) - 12, Kolkata dated 17.01.2018 passed in Case No.10216/CIT(A)-12/W-3(1)/Kol/2017-18 involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

It transpires at the outset that the CIT(A)’s lower appellate order under challenge has been passed ex parte affirming the Assessing Officer’s action initiating section 148/147 proceedings thereby treating the assessee’s share capital/premium of Rs.65,00,000/- as lacking genuineness/creditworthiness.

3.

Learned departmental representative invited our attention to the CIT(A)’s opening page indicating to have provided six opportunities on 24.09.2018, 04.10.2018, 25.10.2018, 14.11.2018, 28.11.2018 and 03.01.2019; respectively. His case therefore is that the assessee never appeared on any of the said dates.

M/s Larigo Investment Pvt. Ltd.

4.

The taxpayer’s case, on the other hand, is that there is no even a whisper in the CIT(A)’s order indicating actual service in either of the six hearings during the course of lower appellate proceedings. And that the CIT(A)’s order has nowhere taken into consideration the relevant factual and legal issues seeking to delete the impugned section 68 addition of unexplained cash credit as well as challenging validity of section 148/147 proceedings. This clinching aspect has gone unrebutted from the Revenue side. We therefore are of the view that the assessee deserves one more innings before the CIT(A). We order accordingly.

5.

This assessee’s appeal is accepted for statistical purposes in above terms.

Order is pronounced in the open court on 10.07.2020.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →