M/S. PANCHGANGA MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 8(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1223/KOL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 October 2019AY 2012-132 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that no compliances were made by the assessee before the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with adequate opportunity to the assessee to present evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was heard ex parte as there was no representation. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 1,07,00,000/- on account of share capital under Section 68 for failing to prove identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction. The CIT(A) also confirmed this addition ex parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of share capital under Section 68 was justified, considering the lack of compliance by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH: KOLKATA

Before: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Hearing: 13.08.2019Pronounced: 04.10.2019

M/s Panchganga Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Appellant [PAN:AAFCP7766E] Vs ITO, Ward-8(3), Kolkata Respondent For the Appellant : None For the Respondent : Shri Gautam Kr. Mondal, Addl. CIT Date of hearing : 13.08.2019 Date of pronouncement : 04.10.2019 ORDER PER Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, JM:

This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 25.01.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Kolkata [‘CIT(A)’] for Assessment Year 2012-13.

2.

We find no representation on behalf of the assessee nor any application filed seeking adjournment. The assessee called absent and we proceed to hear the ld. DR ex parte of assessee.

3.

Heard ld. DR and perused the materials available on record. The issue is relating to addition made on account of share capital u/s. 68 of the Act. It is noted from the record that no compliances were made by the assessee in terms of the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction relating to share capital introduced during the year under consideration. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee did not prove the main ingredients required u/s 68 of the Act and added an amount of Rs.1,07,00,000/- to the total income Page | 1

M/s Panchganga Marketing Pvt. Ltd. of the assessee. It is noted, that even no compliances were made before the CIT(A) in First Appellate Proceedings. Having no option the CIT(A) confirmed the view of Assessing Officer ex parte of assessee. Taking into consideration the submissions of ld. DR and in the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of CIT(A) for his fresh adjudication of the grounds raised by the assessee by issuing notice and adequate opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is at liberty to file evidences, if any, in support of its claim. Thus grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 04.10.2019.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →