M/S. PARIVARTAN RESIDENCY PVT. LTD.,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 13(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 449/KOL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 February 2019AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted the assessee's contentions regarding procedural irregularities and the lack of proper representation before lower authorities. Considering the circumstances, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against the CIT(A)'s order which confirmed the Assessing Officer's addition on account of share capital introduction. The assessee claimed non-receipt of notices and refusal of attendance by the AO.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the AO on account of share capital introduction was valid, given the assessee's claims of procedural lapses and non-receipt of notices.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH: KOLKATA

Before: Shri P. M. JAGTAP & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Hearing: 20.12.2018Pronounced: 27.02.2019

Date of hearing : 20.12.2018 Date of pronouncement : 27.02.2019 ORDER Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, JM:

This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 23.11.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Kolkata [‘CIT(A)’] for Assessment Year 2012-13 wherein he confirmed the order of Assessing Officer ex parte of assessee.

2.

Heard both parties, perused the materials available on record. It is noted from the record that the issue involved in the present appeal is confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of introduction of share capital. It is also noted that there was no representation on behalf of the assessee before the Assessing Officer and CIT(A). The contention of the ld. AR is that an affidavit was filed which is placed on record and argued that the Assessing

M/s Parivartan Residency Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year: 2012-13 Officer refused to record the attendance of authorized representative who appeared before him on behalf of the assessee and referred to Para 2 of the said affidavit. It is also contended that no notices were ever received by the assessee from the first appellate proceedings and referred to Para 3 of the said affidavit. Further, he submits that the assessee is ready to provide all the details in respect of substantial addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of introduction of share capital and prayed the Bench to remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The ld. DR reported no objection in remanding the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. Therefore, on consideration of the submissions of the ld. AR and DR and taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, we remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for his fresh verification. The assessee is liberty to file evidences, if any, in support of its claims. Therefore, 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 27.02.2019.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →