Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against a CIT(A) order for AY 2012-13, challenging an addition made by the AO for share application money received from alleged shell companies. Both the assessee and the Departmental Representative (CIT-DR) filed requests for adjournment, which the Tribunal addressed before proceeding to dispose of the appeal on merits. The AO had issued a notice under section 133(6), but the assessee failed to produce the required details or representatives of the share applicant companies.
Held
The Tribunal rejected the adjournment applications from both parties, noting the lack of proper representation and a general policy against last-minute requests. While the challenge to reopening was rejected due to lack of evidence, the issue of the share application money addition was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to produce the directors/responsible persons of the share applicant companies for examination, with the liberty for the AO to draw adverse inferences upon failure.
Key Issues
Whether the addition for share application money was justified and if the assessee was given adequate opportunity; whether the assessment reopening was valid; and the permissibility of adjournment requests from both parties.
Sections Cited
Section 133(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JM & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, AM
(निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) M/s Amit Realtors Private Limited Vs. DCIT, Circle-3, Bokaro 20/1,Ashutosh Chowdhury Avenue 1st Floor, Kolkata-700019 स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN No. : AAFCA 8143 E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee by : None राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 06/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 06/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A), Patna-3, dated 31.10.2023, for the assessment year 2012-2013.
The assessee has filed an adjournment application for all the years under consideration as follows :- To The Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DB-Bench, Ranchi Date:04.10.2025 Respected Sir, Sub: Appeal in the case of Amit Realtors Pvt. Ltd.- Assessment Year 2012-13 The above appeal has been fixed for hearing on 06.10.2025. In this connection it is submitted that the Ld. Senior Counsel Shri S.M.Surana is out of Kolkata and shall return on 06.10.2025. It is therefore requested your honour to kindly allow a short adjournment and oblige. For this act of kindness the petitioner as in duty bound shall every pray. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (Abhishek Bansal, FCA)
3. It must be mentioned here that said Mr. S.M.Surana is not a Senior Advocate nor there is any Vakalatnama has been filed in the present appeal. Thus, the adjournment application of the assessee is rejected. 4. The ld. CIT-DR also sought adjournment in these cases on the following grounds :-
The number of cases posted during the week is nearly 250, out of the same, on daily basis, nearly in 72 to 75% of the cases, adjournments are being sought. As the Bench was constituted and the same was also intimated much in advance and the adjournment has been sought in the last minute, therefore, the adjournment applications are being rejected.
It may also be worthwhile to mention here that another reason given by the ld. CIT-Departmental Representative for adjournment is that in some of the appeals, orders have been passed by the office of the impugned CIT- DR personally. Here, it is to be mentioned that in respect of the orders of the ld. CIT(A), which have been challenged by the revenue, it can be said that it would be difficult for the ld. CIT-Departmental Representative to defend such orders, in so far as he would be arguing against his own orders. But in such cases, where the orders have been passed against the assessee and the assessee is in appeal, we find no reason as to why the ld. CIT-DR would not be able to defend his own orders. In any case orders have been issued against the assessee. When this was put to the ld. CIT- DR, it was a submission that should the Tribunal pass an order reversing the order of ld. CIT(A), he could be questioned under administrative provisions. This does not stand to be a reason, in so far as the appeal provisions have been provided by the statute. It is human to err. If there is no order passed by the Assessing Officer, then obviously post of CIT(A) is required and if there is no order of ld. CIT(A), there is no requirement of the Tribunal so on and so forth. Various stages of appeals are provided so that necessary proceedings are available for both the assessee and the revenue to defend their stands. Decisions taken by the appellate authority as a judicial or quasi judicial forums, are not subject to administrative reviews. Appeal provisions are provided by the statute. It would also be worthwhile to mention here that repeatedly the courts have been holding that the ld. CIT(A) are quasi judicial authorities and no administrative pressure can be put on them to decide any issues in any specific manner. We are of the view that such apprehension of the ld. CIT-DR is unfounded. Consequently, the submission of the ld. CIT-Departmental Representative was that he is recusing from the arguments. His plea is accepted. The matters are disposed off on merits on the basis of records and documents available before the Tribunal, ex-parte qua the revenue and assessee.
We have perused the orders of the authorities below. A perusal of the facts in the present case clearly shows that the AO has made addition in respect of share application money received from Kolkata based alleged shell company. A perusal of the assessment order in para 7 also shows that notice u/s.133(6) of the Act was issued asking for certain details. This was the notice that such details have not been produced nor have the concerned responsible person of the share applicant companies, appeared before the AO as is also evident from para 7 of the assessment order. This being so, the ld. CIT(A) has held the issue against the assessee. However, as it is noticed that adequate time has not been granted to the assessee to produce the representative of the share applicant companies, in the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of ld. AO for readjudication afresh after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee shall produce the directors/responsible person of the said share applicant companies before the AO for examination and to prove the share application money received. Failure on the part of the assessee to produce such responsible persons, the ld. AO is at liberty to draw adverse inference.
In regard to the issue of reopening, no evidence has been produced other than the grounds raised
. It is also noticed that no evidence has been produced before the ld. CIT(A) either in regard to challenge the reopening. This being so, the challenge to the reopening would stand rejected.
9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 06/10/2025.