REMOTE TRADING PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 3(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

The assessee in the present case is a Company, which filed its return of income for the year under consideration declaring a total income of Rs.7,80,700/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the claim of the assessee of having received share capital and share premium amount aggregating to Rs.32,00,000/- was examined by the Assessing Officer. In this regard, the assessee was required by the Assessing Officer to appear personally before him along with all the Principal Officers or Directors of the Investor Companies for the purpose

Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3), an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) challenging the addition of Rs.32,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 68. There was, however, no satisfactory and proper compliance on the part of the assessee to the notices issued by the ld. CIT(Appeals) fixing the said appeal for hearing from time to time. The ld. CIT(Appeals), therefore, dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide his appellate order dated 27.02.2018 passed ex-parte. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.

I have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. Besides explaining the non- compliance on the part of the assessee before the Assessing Officer as well as before the ld. CIT(Appeals), the ld. Counsel for the assessee has contended that the entire amount in question towards share capital and share premium was received by the assessee-company from its three Directors and the relevant details and documents to verify their identities and capacity were already available on record before the Assessing Officer. He has contended that since all the said three Directors were assessed to tax and the investment made by them in share capital and share premium of the assessee-company was duly reflected in their returns of income, the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 is not sustainable. The ld. D.R., on the other hand, has Assessment year: 2012-2013 Page 3 of 3 contended that this submission made on behalf of the assessee for the first time before the Tribunal requires verification by the Assessing Officer, especially when the same was not made by the assessee before the Assessing Officer inspite of sufficient opportunity afforded during the course of assessment proceedings. I find merit in this contention of the ld. D.R. and since the ld. Counsel for the assessee has also not raised any objection in this regard, I set aside the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) on this issue and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding the same afresh on merit after giving one more opportunity to the assessee of being heard.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on October 22, 2018. Sd/- (P.M. Jagtap) Vice-President (KZ) Kolkata, the 22nd day of October, 2018 Copies to : (1) Remote Trading Pvt. Limited, C/o. PCM Group, 10C, Middleton Row, Dabriwala House, 4t h Floor, Kolkata-700 071 (2) Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700 069