POSITIVE TRADECOMM PVT. LTD.,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 9(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1304/KOL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 June 2020AY 2012-132 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was passed ex parte and did not consider the assessee's evidence. Therefore, the tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer treated the assessee's share capital/premium of Rs. 46,08,56,473/- as unexplained cash credits under Section 68. The CIT(A) passed an ex parte order affirming this action without considering the documentary evidence submitted by the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex parte order without considering the assessee's evidence regarding share capital. Whether the share capital should be treated as unexplained cash credits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D”

Before: SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM & SHRI S. S. GODARA, JM

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate
Hearing: 17/06/2020Pronounced: 19/06/2020

Appellant by : Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Jayanta Khanra, Sr. DR, JCIT सुनवाईक�तार�ख/ Date of Hearing : 17/06/2020 घोषणाक�तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement : 19/06/2020 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) - 18, Kolkata dated 25.01.2018 passed in Case No.1777/2015-16/CIT(A)-18/Wd-9(3)/F.SLNo.2258/17-18/Kol 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 affirming the Assessing Officer’s action treating the assessee’s share capital/premium of Rs.46,08,56,473/- as Section 68 unexplained cash credits in assessment order dated 23.03.2015; has been passed ex parte without even indicating as to whether the relevant notice(s) of hearing stood served or not. Coupled with this, the assessee’s clinching plea that it had filed voluminous documentary evidence before the Assessing Officer for proving identity, genuineness and Positive Tradecomm Pvt. Ltd. creditworthiness of the investor parties which have nowhere been considered has also been remained unrebutted from the Revenue side. Be that as it may, learned counsel submits that the assessee could not appear before the CIT(A) on account of the fact that its concerned director was not available at station in the relevant time span of the lower appellate hearings so as to pursue its grievance. We deem it appropriate in this factual backdrop that larger interest of justice would be met in case the learned CIT(A) decides the matter afresh as per law. More particularly when there is no adjudication on merits in the CIT(A)’s ex parte order under challenge. We order accordingly.

3.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order is pronounced in the open court on 19.06.2020.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →