M/S. TIMELINK PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 9(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1923/KOL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 November 2018AY 2012-132 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide an opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee to submit evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns the assessment year 2012-13. The Assessing Officer added Rs. 5,70,00,000/- to the total income under Section 68, citing inability to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of share subscribers.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred by not providing an opportunity to the assessee to present their case regarding the addition of share capital under Section 68.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “A”, KOLKATA

For Appellant: Adv. &
Hearing: 22.11.2018Pronounced: 30.11.2018

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “A”, KOLKATA BEFORE SH. J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SH. S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2012-13) vs M/s. Timelink Properties Pvt.Ltd., ITO, C/o-Naresh Agarwal, Ward-9(1), Near SBI Beside Ladoo Gopal, Kolkata. Salugara Siliguri-734001. PAN-AAECT1243K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Soumitra Choudhury, Adv. & Jaydev Chakraborty, Adv. Respondent by Sankar Halder JCIT, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 22.11.2018 Date of Pronouncement 30.11.2018 ORDER

PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 25.06.2018 passed by CIT(A)-18, Kolkata for AY 2012-13.

2.

Heard both parties and perused the material available on record. Ld.AR contended that no opportunity accorded by the CIT(A) to the assessee to prosecute issue raised therein. Further, he submits that the AO added an amount of Rs.5,70,00,000/- to the total income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) by holding that the assessee could not prove the genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of share subscribers. The Ld.DR did controvert the same. We find the issue raised in this appeal relating to addition on account of introducing share capital. Therefore, taking into consideration the submissions of the Ld.AR and DR and facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of AO for his fresh consideration in the interest of justice. The (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2012-13) assessee is liberty to file evidences, if any, in support of his contention. Thus, 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 30.11.2018.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →