Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C”, BENCH KOLKATA
Before: SHRI S. S. GODARA, JM & Dr. A. L. SAINI, AM
BEFORE SHRI S. S. GODARA, JM & Dr. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर अपीलसं./ ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Yati Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, Ward-13(4), Kolkata. 3/2, Banstollaghat Road, Ramkrishnapur, Howrah 711101. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAACY4269L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/R Respondent by : Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT, Sr. DR सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date of Hearing : 04/11/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 22/11/2019 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) - 5, Kolkata dated 02.01.2017 passed in Case No.109/CIT(A)-5/Wd-15(4)/15-16 involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
It transpires during the course of hearing that assessee’s sole substantive grievance pleaded in the instant appeal seeks to reverse the lower authorities’ identical action treating its share capital/premium of Rs.1,95,91,000/- raised from 22 parties as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act. We find that the CIT(A)’s order has been passed ex parte since the relevant notices of hearing dated 09.05.2016 & 03.11.2016 could not be served and returned with remarks “first intimation” and “not known”; respectively. Learned Departmental representative fails to dispute that the assessee’s postal address has remained the same right from scrutiny till date.
Mr. Pal vehemently contended at this stage that the assessee has nowhere been able to justify the extraordinary exorbitant premium for 499 per share on face value of Rs.10/- per unit. We find that from page 3 of assessment order that although the Assessing Officer had issued section 131summons, nobody appeared from the investors’ parties’ side to verify genuineness, creditworthiness of the share application/premium in issue. The fact also remains that the assessee has filed all the documentary evidences (in some of the investors’ cases) before the Assessing Officer during scrutiny which could not be subjected to the necessary factual verification. Mr. Shah submits that the assessee shall now get the needful done if the issue is restored back to the Assessing Officer. We take into account of the above narrated facts circumstances of the case that larger interest of justice would be met in case the Assessing Officer reexamines the entire issue once again afresh as per law within three effective opportunities of hearing. We order accordingly.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.