ITO 13(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RECKON TRADING PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4116/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 August 2019AY 2009-103 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's legal ground challenging the reopening of assessment was not decided by the CIT(A). Therefore, the appeal and cross-objection were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on all issues.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of an addition of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- on account of share premium/application money and Rs. 7,50,000/- as unexplained expenditure. The assessee filed a cross-objection challenging the reopening of assessment.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition on account of share premium/application money and unexplained expenditure was justified, and whether the reopening of assessment was valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 69C,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HONBLE & SHRI M. BALAGANESH, HONBLE

For Appellant: Shri Dharmendra Singh
For Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria
Hearing: 26.07.2019Pronounced: 08.08.2019

O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. The appeal and cross objection are filed by the Revenue and assessee respectively against the order of the Learned Commissioner of (A.Y: 2009-10) CO No. 285/MUM/2018 M/s. Reckon Trading Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax (Appeals) -21, Mumbai [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 20.03.2017 for the A.Y. 2009-10.

2.

The Revenue has raised the following grounds in its appeal: - “1. The Id. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,50,00,000/- on account of share premium/share application money /Unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of Income-tax Act, 1961 and addition of Rs.7,50,000/- being 5% of the unexplained cash credit value, as unexplained of expenditure u/s 69C of the I.T.Act.

2. The appellant prays that the order of the Id.CIT(A) on the grounds be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.

3. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter all or any of the grounds of appeal which may be necessary.”

3.

In the cross objection assessee has raised the following grounds: - “

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the respondent challenges the re-opening u/s. 148 issued by A.O. is bad in law.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, alternatively the respondent please that the learned CIT(A) has not decided the issue raised by respondent on re-opening u/s. 148 of the Act by the assessing officer is bad in law and against the principle of natural justice.”

4. At the time of hearing, at the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the ground raised by the assessee challenging the reopening of assessment has not been disposed of by the Ld.CIT(A). On a perusal of the record before us, we find that no such ground has been raised before the Ld.CIT(A). However, since the ground raised by the assessee is purely a legal ground going to the very jurisdiction and the validity of the assessment order, we feel it appropriate to restore this issue to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for adjudication. The assessee is at liberty to rise the legal ground before the Ld.CIT(A). Thus, we restore this appeal to the file of (A.Y: 2009-10) CO No. 285/MUM/2018 M/s. Reckon Trading Pvt. Ltd., the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Since the decision on the validity of reassessment, has bearing on the merits of the addition made in the assessment, without making any comments on merits the appeal of the Revenue is also restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

5.

In the result, both appeal of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 08th August, 2019

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →