M/S NIKHIL OIL FIELD SUPPLY & SERVICES PVT. LTD.,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD-13(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1111/KOL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 October 2019AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that the matter should be remanded to the Assessing Officer for de novo verification of the share capital and premium details, subject to the assessee paying costs.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay of 62 days. The Assessing Officer had made additions on account of share capital and premium under Section 68 and also under Section 14A. The CIT(A) had confirmed the Assessing Officer's order ex parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of share capital and premium were justified, and whether the assessee was provided adequate opportunity to present its case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH: KOLKATA

Before: Shri P. M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Hearing: 05.08.2019Pronounced: 01.10.2019

M/s. Nikhil Oilfield Supply & Services Pvt. Ltd. Appellant [PAN:AAECN0301N] Vs ITO, Ward-13(3), Kolkata Respondent For the Appellant : Shri Shashi Murarka, CA For the Respondent : Shri Shankar Halder, JCIT, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 05.08.2019 Date of pronouncement :01.10.2019 ORDER Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, JM:

This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 09.12.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Kolkata [‘CIT(A)’] for Assessment Year 2012-13 wherein he confirmed the order of Assessing Officer ex parte of assessee.

2.

We find that the present appeal was filed with a delay of 62 days and an affidavit filed stating the reasons for delay. On perusal of the same and upon hearing both the parties, we find the assessee made out sufficient cause for delay and the reasons stated in the affidavit really prevented the assessee in filing the appeal in time. Therefore, the delay of 62 days is condoned.

3.

Heard both the parties and persued the material available on record. It is noted that the Assessing Officer added an amount of Rs.1,07,50,000/- u/s 68 of the Act on account of share capital and premium besides an addition u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D of Rules. We find that the Assessing Officer added the said amount for non-compliance of Page | 1

M/s. Nikhil Oilfield Supply & Services Pvt. Ltd. notice u/s 131 of the Act. As stated above, the CIT(A) confirmed the order passed by the Assessing Officer ex parte of assessee.

4.

The contention of the ld. AR is that the no notices were received from the First Appellate Authority and prayed to remand the matter to the file of Assessing Officer for his fresh verification of details of subscribing companies relating to share capital and premium. It is noted from the record that the CIT(A) issued two notices dated 18.07.2016 and 03.11.2016 fixing the dates of hearing on 17.08.2016 and 08.12.2016 respectively. Both the notices were served on assessee, on one occasion the assessee sought adjournment and the next occasion remained absent. As discussed above, the issue is relating to share capital and premium which requires explanation by the assessee by submitting various details and no such details were submitted before the Assessing Officer u/s 131 proceedings as such we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of Assessing Officer for his de novo verification subject to the payment of Rs.5,000/- towards costs in favour of Prime Ministers Relief Fund. The Assessing Officer shall satisfy the payment of such costs by the assessee and to proceed to complete assessment. The assessee is at liberty to file evidences, if any, to substantiate its claim before the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer shall give adequate opportunity to the assessee. Thus, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 01.10.2019.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →