BHOLEBABA JUTE PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-X(PRESENTLY ITO WARD-10(10/KOL), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 613/KOL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 March 2019AY 2009-102 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not conduct proper verification regarding the share subscribing companies. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh verification.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed an order concerning AY 2009-10. The primary issue involved the verification of share capital and premium raised by the assessee. The assessee argued that no summons were issued to share subscribing companies during remand proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether the Assessing Officer properly verified the share subscribing companies and whether remand proceedings were conducted correctly without issuing summons.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 131,Section 143(3),Section 144,Section 147,Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “C”, KOLKATA

For Respondent: Dr. P.K.Srihari, CIT DR
Hearing: 29.01.2019Pronounced: 27.03.2019

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “C”, KOLKATA BEFORE SH. P.M.JAGTAP, VICE PRESIDENT & SH.S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2009-10) vs DCIT, Bholebaba Jute Pvt. Ltd., 151, Sarat Bose Road, CC-X, Kolkata Kolkata-700026. [Presently ITO, Ward- PAN-AACCB6453F 10(1), Kolkata-700069.] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Subash Agarwal, Adv. Respondent by Dr. P.K.Srihari, CIT DR Date of Hearing 29.01.2019 Date of Pronouncement 27.03.2019 ORDER PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 11.12.2014 passed by CIT(A)-21, Kolkata for AY 2009-10 u/s 144/263/143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”).

2.

Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The contention of the Ld.AR was that the AO in the remand proceedings, no summons u/s 131 of the Act were issued to the share subscribing companies and placed on record the note sheet of AO wherein he pointed out that there was no proceedings as such before the AO between 28.03.2014 and 20.03.2017 and argued the finding made by the AO in its Remand Report which is reproduced by the CIT(A) at para 4.6 is incorrect and sought to remand the matter to AO for his fresh verification. Ld.DR vehemently opposed the submissions of the Ld.AR in respect of non recording of remand proceedings and argued that there was no compliance on behalf of the assessee before the AO in remand proceedings but, however, reported no objection in respect of submissions remanding the matter to the file of the AO with a specific request directing the assessee to comply summons u/s 131 of the Act. We note that the issue is of raising share capital and premium, in our opinion, thereon requires assistance of the assessee as well as the share subscribing companies. On perusal of the record, we find no such exercise as required by the law was done by the AO. Therefore, taking into consideration the submissions of the Ld.AR & Ld.DR and facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the AO for his fresh verification in respect of details of share subscribing companies. We also direct the assessee to put in compliance in such proceedings without fail. Thus, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

3.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 27.03.2019.

More judgments on Section 131

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →