NISCHAY INFOTECH PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.WARD-1(4), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 377/KOL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 April 2019AY 2012-132 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the issue involved additions under Section 68 and that the Assessing Officer could not conduct proceedings under Section 131. Citing a similar case, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against the CIT(A)'s order which confirmed the Assessing Officer's additions made ex-parte. The assessee claimed they did not receive notices in the first appellate proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether the additions made under Section 68 were justified when the assessee was not provided an opportunity to explain the cash credits, and whether the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 131,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Sri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi]

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA [Before Sri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-President & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member] Assessment Year: 2012-13 Nischay Infotech Pvt. Ltd...............................................................…………………….…….…..............…...Appellant (Earlier knows as Nischay Commodities Private Limited) 6, C.R. Avenue 2nd Floor S-210 Kolkata- 700 072 [PAN : AAACN 8922 D] Income Tax Officer Ward-1(4), Kolkata……………………………………....……...……………………….Respondent Appearances by: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/R, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Shankar Halder, JCIT, Sr. DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : March 8th, 2019 Date of pronouncing the order : April 3rd , 2019 O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, JM :-

This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 1, Kolkata, (hereinafter the ‘ld. CIT (A)’), dt. 14/02/2019, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’), relating to the Assessment Year 2012-13, wherein he confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer ex-parte of the assessee.

2.

While hearing the submissions of the ld. A/R in respect of the appeal under the caption of “early hearing”, we find that the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer ex-parte of the assessee and the ld. A/R submits that there were no notices received by the assessee in the first appellate proceedings. He further submits that the issue involved herein is addition made u/s 68 of the Act, wherein the Assessing Officer could not conduct the proceedings u/s 131 of the Act, which requires to prove the identity, creditworthiness of the assessee and genuineness of the transactions of share subscribing companies. Further he placed the reliance on order of this Tribunal in the case of Kasvi Distributors Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO in Assessment Year 2012-13, order dt. November 19th, Assessment Year: 2012-13 Nischay Infotech Pvt. Ltd 2018, wherein he argued, that under similar circumstances, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to conduct fresh enquiry by affording an opportunity to the assessee to explain the relevant cash credits. The ld. D/R reports no objection in disposing off the main appeal.

3.

Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We find that on similar facts and on identical issue, this Tribunal as pointed out by the ld. A/R in the case of Kasvi Distributors Pvt. Ltd. (supra) remanded the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for his fresh consideration by giving one more opportunity to the assessee to explain the cash credits by supporting documentary evidence. Therefore, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for his fresh adjudication and the assessee is at liberty to file evidences, if any, in support of its claim.

4.

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

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →