M/S. BHAWANI MERCHANTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 5(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1395/KOL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 December 2018AY 2012-132 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT found that the CIT(A)'s order lacked proper adjudication, failing to discuss the facts and points of determination as required. The tribunal restored both grounds to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2012-13 was filed against the CIT(A)'s order which upheld the AO's action treating share premium as unexplained cash credit and disallowing expenses under Section 14A. The assessee did not appear before the lower appellate authority or the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated the grounds of appeal without proper discussion of facts and points of determination. Whether the share premium was an unexplained cash credit and if expenses under Section 14A were correctly disallowed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 14A,Section 144,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “A” KOLKATA

Before: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

O R D E R

PER S.S.Godara, Judicial Member:

1.

- This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, Kolkata’s order dated 03.05.2017 passed in case No.104/CIT(A)-23/W-5(3)/16-17 involving proceedings u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest despite the fact that the registry has already sent it an RPAD notice dated 31.10.2018. It is accordingly proceeded ex parte.

2.

We now come to assessee’s pleadings. It has raised two substantive grounds in the instant appeal. Its former grievance challenges correctness of both the lower authorities’ action treating its share / premium amount of ₹20,73,01,000/- as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act. Its latter substantive ground seeks to delete u/s 14A r.w.s. Rule 8D disallowance of ₹18,650/- made in the course of assessment as upheld in lower appellate proceedings. We find that the assessee had not put in appearance in lower appellate

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →