M/S CHARIOT AGENCY (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2476/KOL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 December 2018AY 2009-102 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to properly serve notice and did not adjudicate the issue on merits. The assessee's address was consistent and the AO had served notices successfully.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns share application/premium treated as unexplained cash credits. The CIT(A) passed an ex parte order affirming the AO's addition without discussing the merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred by passing an ex parte order without proper service of notice and without adjudicating the issue on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 143(3),Section 144,Section 147,Section 263,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “B” KOLKATA

Before: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

O R D E R

PER S.S.Godara, Judicial Member:

1.

- This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2009-10 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, Kolkata’s order dated 20.03.2017 passed in case No.148/CIT(A)-23/W-6(1)/16-17 involving proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 147 rw.s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard both the sides. Case file perused.

2.

This assessee’s sole substantive ground raised in the instant appeal challenges both the lower authorities’ action treating its share application / premium amounting to ₹5,86,15,000/- to be its unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act. We notice at the outset that the CIT(A) has passed his lower appellate order ex parte against the assessee whilst affirming the Assessing Officer’s action making the impugned addition. It transpires during the course of hearing that CIT(A) had failed to serve the relevant hearing notice at the first instance. He then deputed his office

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →