DIKSHA TIMBER PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 9(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2272/KOL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 April 2019AY 2012-132 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly discussed the relevant facts and evidence provided by the assessee. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal suffered from a 90-day delay in filing, which was condoned by the tribunal. The core issue was the addition made by the lower authorities on account of share capital received from a sister concern, treated as unexplained cash credits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated the appeal by considering the assessee's evidence regarding share capital, and whether the addition under Section 68 was justified without adequate discussion of facts.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 143(3),Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “B” KOLKATA

Before: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

O R D E R

PER S.S.Godara, Judicial Member:

1.

- This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-16 Kolkata’s order dated 04.08.2017 passed in case No.642/CIT(A)-16/Kol/2014-15/C-9(1), involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex parte against the assessee.

2.

It transpires at the outset that the assessee’s appeal suffers from 90 days delay in filing. It has filed its condonaton petition dated 02.11.2017 stating reasons thereof to lack of communication before the auditor’s office and the arguing counsel. The Revenue is in fair enough in not dispsuting correctness of these condonation averments during the course of hearing. We accordingly condone the impugned delay of 90 days as neither intentionally nor deliberate going by the preceding averments. The case is taken up for adjudication on merits.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →