What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal found that the issue of share capital and share premium required further verification and evidence from the assessee.

The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 12 days. The assessee's representative argued that the delay was due to a misunderstanding with their chartered accountant. The assessee also requested the matter be remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh verification.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the matter should be remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on the issue of share capital and premium.

M/S. Devi Commosales Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO | ITAT Kolkata 2019

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

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA [Before Sri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-President & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member] Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Devi Commonsales Pvt. Ltd..................................................…………………….…….…..............…...Appellant 3, Saket Place Kolkata -700 072 [PAN : AADCD 0772 C] Income Tax Officer Ward-1(4), Kolkata……………………………………....……...……………………….Respondent Appearances by: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Radhe Shyam, CIT, DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : March 7th, 2019 Date of pronouncing the order : March 29th , 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) - 7, Kolkata, (hereinafter the ‘ld. CIT (A)’), dt. 27/03/2018, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’), relating to the Assessment Year 2009-10, wherein he confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer ex-parte of the assessee.

We find that there is a delay of 12 days in filing of this appeal and an affidavit filed by the directors of the assessee stating that the assessee engaged a chartered accountant and they were under the impression that proper compliance were made by the said representative. The ld. A/R prayed to condone the delay and upon hearing both the parties, the reasons stated by one of the directors representing the assessee are bonafide and which really prevented the assessee from filing this appeal in time and the delay of 12 days in filing this appeal is condoned.

On merits, we have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is observed that there was no representation before the ld.

Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Devi Commonsales Pvt. Ltd CIT(A) and the ld. A/R prayed that if this Tribunal pleases to remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for his fresh verification, the assessee is ready to comply with the notices. The ld. D/R reported no objection. We find that the issue challenged before the ld. CIT(A) relating to share capital and share premium, requires, in our opinion, assistance of the assessee by producing relevant documents in support of its claims. Therefore, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for his fresh adjudication. The assessee is at liberty to file evidence, if any, in support of its claims. Thus, these grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

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

M/S. DEVI COMMOSALES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments