SONAR BANGLA JEWELLERS P. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 9(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 935/KOL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 April 2019AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee could not properly present its case before the Assessing Officer due to non-response to the summons. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication to provide one more opportunity to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee company failed to respond to a summons issued under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, regarding share capital introduced during the financial year. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee could not prove the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the share capital sources.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee had discharged its onus to prove the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of share capital when it failed to respond to statutory notices.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 131,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C”, BENCH KOLKATA

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

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. CIT (DR)
Hearing: 07/02/2019Pronounced: 30/04/2019

आदेश / O R D E R

Per Dr. A. L. Saini, AM:

The captioned appeal filed by the assessee , pertaining to assessment year 2012-13 is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-3, 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 25.03.2015.

Sonar Bangla Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. . Assessment Year:2012-13 2. At the outset itself, the ld counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee company did not respond to summon u/s 131, so identity, genuineness and creditworthiness has not been proved. The ld. Counsel took us the relevant para of assessment order, which is given below for ready reference:

“However, since the assesee -company claimed to have received share capital to the tune of Rs.3,09,50,000/- during the financial year under consideration and the said issue was not verifiable from the documents, summons U/s 131 was issued to the directors of the assessee company for personal deposition and also producing the following details on 19.02.2015.

1.

Proof of identity-Voter Card/Passport/Driving license/PAN Card 2. List of companies where you were Directors/shareholders with dates of appointment with DIN 3. Proof of acknowledgement of filing IT Return along with copies of accounts.

4. All bank statements explaining debit and credit entries highlighting the relevant entries with regard to share capital.

5.

To produce all investors who have made investment 6. ·the source of funds in the hands of the investors with their respective bank statements 7. Identification of family members who are directors in the assessee company and there relationship.

8.

A write-up on justification of large share premium. In response to that summons u/s 131 were issued to the assessee- company. But the same came back unserved. On perusal of these documents filed, it appears that the same fell far short of discharging the onus of the assessee in the matter of explaining the sources of the said share capital in question. Thus from the above discussion it can easily be concluded that through the various notices and letters issued from this office, the assessee was asked to represent its case by explaining the sources of the above share capital. But, in spite of, a number of opportunities given, the assessee failed to establish the three ingredients, namely- identity, genuineness and credit worthiness of the said sources of fund introduced in the nature of share capital.”

3.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. During the assessment stage the assessee did not respond the summons u/s 131 of the Act. Therefore we are of the view that the assessee could not plead his case properly before the Assessing Officer, hence one more opportunity should be Page | 2

Sonar Bangla Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. . Assessment Year:2012-13 given to the assessee to plead his case before the Assessing Officer. Moreover, the Assessing Officer could not verify the genuineness, identity and creditworthiness of share capital premium raised by the assessee. The ld. DR for the revenue did not have objection if the matter is remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer. Therefore we think it fit and appropriate to remit this issue 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 assessee is treated to be allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Court on 30.04.2019

More judgments on Section 131

All 4,706 judgments and leading authorities on Section 131 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →