M/S BHAGYA VINIMOY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 5(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1012/KOL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 September 2018AY 2012-132 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the issues on merits and did not follow the procedure under Section 250(6) of the Act. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2012-13 was against the CIT(A)'s order which affirmed the addition of share application/premium as unexplained cash credits and disallowance under Section 14A. The CIT(A) had rejected the assessee's grounds ex parte for non-appearance.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated the appeal on merits when the assessee failed to appear, and whether the CIT(A) followed the prescribed procedure for adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A,Section 8D,Section 143(3),Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “B” KOLKATA

Before: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

PER S.S.Godara, Judicial Member:

- This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 1012-13 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, Kolkata’s order dated 13.02.2017 passed in case No.101/CIT(A)-23/W-5(3)/16-17, affirming Assessing Officer’s action adding its share application / premium of ₹1,38,50,000/- to be unexplained cash credits and disallowance u/s 14A r.w.s. 8D disallowance of ₹1,34,454/- in assessment order dated 13.03.2015, involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties strongly reiterated their respective stands against and in support of the impugned additions. Case file perused.

2.

It emerges at the outset that the CIT(A)’s order passed ex parte has rejected assessee’s twin substantive grounds (supra) mainly for the reason that it had failed to ITA No.1012/Kol/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 M/s Bhagya Vinimoy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO Wd-5(3), Kol. Page 2 appear in the course of lower appellate proceedings. We do not find any discussion at all regarding merits of the two issues. Section 250(6) of the Act envisages that the CIT(A) has to frame point of his determination followed by detailed adjudication thereof on merits. There is no such compliance forthcoming in the CIT(A)’s order under challenge. He simply observes in paras C & D that the assessee had failed to appear in furtherance to lower appellate hearing notice(s). He draws support of this tribunal’s decision in others ITA Subhalakshmi Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. & No.1104/Kol/2014 affirming the CIT’s revisional order involving sham application / premium issues in the given facts and circumstances of the said case.

3.

File suggests that the assessee had placed on record of the relevant details of its investors entities in support of proving identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the share application / premium during scrutiny. Neither of the lower authority has considered the same in assessment nor the lower appellate proceedings. The assessee’s address has also remained same throughout both the lower appellate proceedings. We therefore deem it appropriate to restore the instant appeal back to the CIT(A) for afresh adjudication on merits after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. This assessee’s appeal is accepted for statistical purposes.

4.

Order pronounced in open court on 19/09/2018 (लेखा सद&य) ("या(यक सद&य) *Dkp-Sr.PS )दनांकः- 19/09/2018 कोलकाता / Kolkata आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. अपीलाथ"/Appellant-M/s Bhagya Vinimoy Pvt. Ltd., 7A, 1st Fl, R.No.101, Bentinck Street, Old Wing, Kolkata-001

2.

""यथ"/Respondent-ITO Ward-5(3), Aayakar bhawan, Chowringhee Sq. Kolkata-69 3. संबं,धत आयकर आयु-त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु-त- अपील / CIT (A) 5. .वभागीय "(त(न,ध, आयकर अपील"य अ,धकरण कोलकाता/DR, ITAT, Kolkata 6. गाड2 फाइल / Guard file. By order/आदेश से, // Sr. Private Secretary, Head of Office/DDO आयकर अपील"य अ,धकरण, कोलकाता

More judgments on Section 14A

All 15,875 judgments and leading authorities on Section 14A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →