ITO, WARD-10(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SHEELA COLD STORAGE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1876/KOL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 December 2018AY 2012-132 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal could not adjudicate the appeal due to the absence of the assessee and the lack of assistance. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed an order by the CIT(A) that deleted an addition made by the AO. The assessee failed to appear before the Tribunal despite multiple adjournments and notices.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) correctly deleted the addition made by the AO under Section 68 regarding share capital, and the ability to adjudicate without assessee's participation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH: KOLKATA

Before: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM & Shri A.T. Varkey, JM]

Hearing: 10.12.2018Pronounced: 28.12.2018

Per Shri A.T.Varkey, JM

1.

This is an appeal preferred by the revenue against the order of Ld. CIT(A)- 4, Kolkata dated 14.07.2016 for AY 2012-13.

2.

At the outset, we note that though this appeal is preferred by the revenue and that the impugned order was passed on 14.07.2016 and till date when the appeal was fixed for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. We note that this is the 9th time the appeal has been fixed and the notices have been sent by RPAD several times to the assessee and the assessee has not cared to appear or make arrangement to engage an AR to defend the appeal preferred against it before us.

3.

We note that this is a case where is addition has been made by the AO u/s 68 to the tune of Rs. 3,03,02,730/-. According to the AO, the assessee company had failed to discharge its onus of proving the genuineness of the transactions and identity and creditworthiness of the subscribers while raising capital at huge share premium and that the assessee failed to corroborate the high value and creditworthiness of the ratio of such share premium before the AO during the assessment proceedings. We note that the appeal filed by revenue raises mixed question of fact and law and needs to examine the documents in order

2 M/s. Sheela Cold Storage Ltd. AY- 2012-13 to adjudge the legality of the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in respect to identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share subscribers who had introduced credit in the books of the assessee. Since neither the assessee nor the AR has appeared though the matter was listed several times and has not even cared to file any paper book, we are unable to ascertain the legality of the addition deleted by the Ld. CIT(A), without proper assistance from the Ld. AR of the assessee. In the light of aforesaid facts and circumstances we would not be able to adjudicate the question/grounds raised before us and so in the interest of justice and fair play we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication of the appeal of the assessee challenging the addition made by the Assessing Officer after hearing the assessee and AO as per Income Tax Rules 1962 and pass a speaking order in accordance with law.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order is pronounced in the open court on 28th December, 2018

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →