M/S GOLDMOON COMMOSALES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-2(4), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2457/KOL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 December 2019AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the case to the AO. The assessee was granted an opportunity to produce the directors of share subscriber companies and relevant documents for examination.

What were the facts?

The assessee company's share capital of Rs. 1,73,00,000/- was added to its income as unexplained cash credit by the AO for failure to produce directors of share subscriber companies. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte for non-prosecution.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was provided with adequate opportunity to prove the genuineness of share capital, and if the ex-parte order of CIT(A) was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 131,Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH ‘(A

Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap(KZ) & Shri S.S. Godara, JM]

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH ‘(A)’, KOLKATA [Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice President (KZ) & Shri S.S. Godara, JM] Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Goldmoon Commosales Pvt. Ltd......................................…………………………......Appellant 10, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, 2nd Floor, Kolkata – 700 013. [PAN: AADCG 8534 D] Vs ITO, Ward 2(4), Kolkata...................…………………………………………………................Respondent P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 013. Appearances by: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate appearing on behalf of the Assessee. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : December 06, 2019 Date of pronouncing the order : December 06, 2019 ORDER PER P.M. JAGTAP, VICE-PRESIDENT (KZ & HZ)

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A) – 6, Kolkata dated 14.10.2016 passed ex-parte whereby he dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

2.

The assessee in the present case is a company which is engaged in the business of investment & trading in share. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by it on 29.09.2012. During the course of assessment proceedings, a summons u/s 131 of the Act was issued by the AO to the director of the assessee-company requiring him to produce the directors of the company who had contributed to the share capital of the assessee company to the extent of Rs. 1,73,00,000/-. The said summons issued by the AO, however, remained uncomplied with. The AO, therefore, held that the primary

Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Goldmoon Commosales Pvt. Ltd. onus that lay on the assessee to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the concerned share subscriber companies and the genuineness of the relevant transaction was not discharged by the assessee. The entire share capital amount of Rs. 1,73,00,000/- accordingly was treated by him as unexplained cash credit and addition to that extent was made by him to the total income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. He also made a further addition of Rs. 33,750/- on account of disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D and completed the assessment u/s 143(3) vide an order dated 27.02.2015.

3.

Against the order passed by the AO u/s 143(3), an appeal was preferred by the Ld. CIT(A) and since there was no satisfactory compliance on the part of the assessee to the notices issued by him fixing the said appeal for hearing from time to time, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution vide his appellate order dated 14.10.2019 passed ex-parte thereby confirming the addition made by the AO to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.

4.

We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. Besides explaining the non-compliance on the part of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) by submitting that the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) fixing the appeal for hearings were never received by the assessee, the learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that proper and sufficient

Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Goldmoon Commosales Pvt. Ltd. opportunity was not given to the assessee even by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings to produce the directors of the share subscriber companies for examination / verification. He has submitted that the assessee is in a position to produce the said directors along with the relevant documentary evidence for examination / verification before the AO and urged that one more opportunity may be given to the assessee to do so by sending the matter back to the AO. Since the ld. DR has also not raised any objection for sending the matter back to the AO for proper examination / verification, we set aside the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) ex-parte and restore the case to the file of the AO for deciding the same afresh after giving proper and sufficient opportunity to the assessee to produce the directors of the concerned share subscriber companies along with the relevant documentary evidence for examination / verification. As undertaken by the learned counsel for the assessee, the assessee shall make due compliance before the Assessing Officer and extend all the cooperation in order to enable the AO to complete the assessment expeditiously.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 6th December, 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 →