ITO, WARD-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ASTHMANGAL PROPERTIES LTD., KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1249/KOL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2019AY 2012-132 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer did not reach a logical conclusion to verify the share subscribers. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 8,05,00,000/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. Notices sent to the share subscribers returned unserved, preventing verification of their identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition without proper examination of the share applicants' creditworthiness and genuineness, and whether the issue should have been remitted back to the AO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 131

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D”, BENCH KOLKATA

Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Singh, CIT DR
Hearing: 30/04/2019Pronounced: 10/05/2019

आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: The captioned appeal filed by the Revenue, pertaining to assessment year 2012-13 is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-23, Kolkata, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) dated 28.03.2015.

2.

The grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are as follows:

1.

2. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in not considering the facts of the case while deleting the addition of Rs. 8,05,00,000/-, made by the Assessing Officer u/s 68 of the Act.

3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, ld. CIT(A) has erred in violating Rule u/s 46A(3) without remitting the issue before the A.O. for the purpose of examination of creditworthiness of the share applicants.

M/s Asthmangal properties Ltd. Assessment Year:2012-13 3. The share subscribers (allottees) were summoned u/s 131 of the Act by A.O. , but notices sent to them returned back. Therefore Assessing Officer could not verify the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of share subscribing companies. (vide page 2 of Assessing Officer’s order). Hence we are of the view that ld. Assessing Officer did not reach on logical conclusion to verify the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share subscribing companies. Therefore we are of the view that this matter should be remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer and hence we set aside the order of ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is treated to be allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Court on 10.05.2019

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →