LIFEWOOD AGENCIES (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-1(2), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 703/KOL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 July 2020AY 2012-132 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order did not confirm if hearing notices were served and lacked detailed adjudication. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The CIT(A) affirmed the addition of Rs. 2,77,25,000/- as unexplained cash credits. The Revenue contended that the assessee failed to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of investors.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated the appeal without confirming service of hearing notices and providing detailed adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 143(3),Section 250(6)

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 Subash Agarwal, Advocate
Hearing: 08/06/2020Pronounced: 10/07/2020

Appellant by : Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate 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 2012-13 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) - 17, Kolkata dated 07.03.2019 passed in Case No.175/CIT(A)-17/Kol/17-18 involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

Case file suggests at the outset that the CIT(A)’s lower appellate order under challenge has affirmed the Assessing Officer’s action adding the assessee’s share capital/premium of Rs.2,77,25,000/- as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act since lacking genuineness/creditworthiness.

3.

The Revenue’s case in tune with the CIT(A)’s lower appellate order is that the assessee neither appeared in lower appellate proceedings nor has it discharged his onus of proving identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the investor parties.

Lifewood Agencies (P) Ltd.

4.

We notice in this backdrop that although the CIT(A)’s order in para no.2 indicates that he had fixed the assessee’s appeal for hearing on 24.01.2018, 06.02.2019 & 21.02.2019, there is not even a whisper as to whether the same had been actually served hearing notice or not. Coupled with this, the CIT(A)’s order has not discussed the relevant issues as well followed by a detailed adjudication u/s 250(6) of the Act. We therefore deem it appropriate to restore the assessee’s instant sole substantive grievance back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication as per law.

5.

This assessee’s appeal is accepted for statistical purposes.

Order is pronounced in the open court on 10.07.2020.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →