M/S. TRIBENI INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 3(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1516/KOL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 February 2019AY 2014-152 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity for hearing and the CIT(A) did not adjudicate the issue on merits. Therefore, the case was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer treated share application money of ₹16,87,859/- as unexplained cash credits under Section 68. The assessee received a very short notice for compliance. The CIT(A) also upheld the addition without a detailed adjudication.

What were the issues?

Whether the share application money was correctly treated as unexplained cash credit and whether the assessee was provided with adequate opportunities for hearing by the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “SMC” KOLKATA

Before: Shri S.S, Godara

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15, arises against the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-1, Kolkata’s order dated 22.06.2018 passed in case No.59754764120017/CIT(A)-1/Kol./DCIT.Cir.3(1)/1016-17, involving proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

The assessee’s sole substantive ground raised in the instant appeal challenges both the lower authorities’ respective action finalize ex parte treating the share application money in issue amounting to ₹16,87,859/- as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act. It transpires during the course of hearing that Assessing Officer had issued notice to the assessee on 20.12.2016 for producing the necessary evidence. He completed the impugned assessment on 23.12.2016 thereby giving a very very short time for necessary compliance. Same appears to be the case in lower appellate

ITA No.1516/Kol/2018 A.Y. 2014-15 M/s Tribeni Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO Wd-3(2), Kol. Page 2 proceedings wherein the assessee put in appearance on 05.06.2018 only. The CIT(A) adjourned the matter for 14.06.2018 and 22.06.2018 and upheld the impugned addition under challenge.

3.

Learned Departmental Representative fails to indicate in the CIT(A)’s order that assessee have actually served the relevant notice of hearing on 22.06.2018. Coupled with this, CIT(A) has not adjudicated the sole issue herein on merits after a detailed discussion as contemplated u/s 250(6) of the Act. I therefore deem it appropriate in these facts and circumstances to restore the instant lis back to the Assessing Officer for afresh adjudication as per law after affording three effective opportunity of hearing to the taxpayer.

4.

This assessee’s appeal is accepted for statistical purposes in above terms. Order pronounced in open court on 28/02/2019 (S.S. Godara) Judicial Member Kolkata, *Dkp/Sr.PS "दनांकः- 28/02/2019 कोलकाता आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. अपीलाथ"/Appellant-M/s Tribeni Industries Pvt. Ltd. 89/1, Salkia School Road, Bandhaghat, Howrah-711106

2.

""यथ"/Respondent-ITO Ward-3(2), P-7, Chowringhee Sq, 7th Fl, Kolkata-69 3. संबं"धत आयकर आयु%त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु%त- अपील / CIT (A) 5. &वभागीय ")त)न"ध, आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण कोलकाता / DR, ITAT, Kolkata 6. गाड+ फाइल / Guard file. By order/आदेश से, // उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता ।

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →