ITO, WD-5(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BRIGHTWAY TRADELINK PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1157/KOL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 February 2019AY 2012-20133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to examine the directors of the company, which was crucial given the issuance of shares at a high premium. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed an order by the CIT(A) that deleted additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of share application money and undisclosed income. The Assessing Officer had made these additions under Section 68. The assessee agreed that the directors of the company were not examined during assessment.

What were the issues?

Whether the Assessing Officer properly established the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of shareholders when making additions under Section 68. Whether the failure to examine directors during assessment warrants a remand.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C”, BENCH KOLKATA

Before: SHRI S.S. GODARA, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM

For Respondent: Shri Miraj D. Shah, AR
Hearing: 05/02/2019Pronounced: 08/02/2019

आदेश / O R D E R

Per Dr. A. L. Saini, AM:

1.

The captioned appeal filed by the Revenue , pertaining to assessment year 2012-13 is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-2, Kolkata, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) dated 18.03.2015.

2.

The grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are as follows:

1. "That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Kolkata, erred in holding that addition of Rs.5,33,40,000/- on account of share

M/s Brightway Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year:2012-13 application money as cash credit u/s.68 was not warranted, ignoring the fact that at the time of assessment before the Assessing Officer the assessee failed to establish the identity, genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of the shareholders, which are precondition to prove the genuineness of any amount credited in the books." 2. "That on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the CIT(A}-2, Kolkata, erred in holding that addition of Rs.1,13,00,000/- on account of undisclosed income was not warranted, ignoring the fact that at the time of assessment before the Assessing Officer, the assessee failed to put forward any reasonable and/or satisfactory explanation in respect of the bogus entry of Rs.1,13,00,000/- as share transactions provided by M/s. Favourite Steel Traders Pvt. Ltd. to the assessee." 3. “The appellant craves leave to adduce addition and/or supplementary ground/grounds and to amend and/or alter the ground /grounds any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.”

3.

The ld. DR at the outset itself submitted before the Bench that during the assessment proceedings the directors of the company were not examined by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer has not issued notice to the directors of this assessee company, which issued shares at huge premium therefore the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the directors of the said company has not been established. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has fairly agreed with the proposition canvassed by the ld. DR for the revenue that during the assessment proceedings the directors of the company could not be examined in further and to section 131 / 133(6) process by the Assessing Officer therefore the issue should be remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer, for fresh assessment.

4.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that during the assessment proceedings the important aspect to examine the directors of the company has not been carried out by the Assessing Officer. Since the company has issued shares at huge premium and in this scenario it was necessary for the Assessing Officer to examine the identity of the directors of the company, therefore we think it fit and appropriate to remit this issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer, and hence we set aside the order of ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

M/s Brightway Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year:2012-13

5.

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is treated to be allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Court on 08.02.2019

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →