M/S. SCORPIO TIE UP PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 7(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 871/KOL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 July 2018AY 2012-132 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that neither the CIT(A) nor the Assessing Officer provided adequate reasoning or discussed the evidence submitted by the assessee. Therefore, the case was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns additions made by the Assessing Officer for share application/premium and disallowance related to exempt income. The CIT(A) upheld these additions without specifying points of determination or providing detailed reasoning.

What were the issues?

Whether the additions for unexplained cash credits and disallowance of expenses were made with proper reasoning and consideration of evidence. Whether the appellate order met the requirements of Section 250(6) of the Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 14A,Section 8D Rule,Section 143(3),Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “C” KOLKATA

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

O R D E R

PER S.S.Godara, Judicial Member:

1.

- This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Kolkata’s order dated 22.02.2018 passed in case No.1598/2015- 16/CIT(A)-18/Wd-7(3)/F.Sl. No.2364/17-18/Kol ex parte upholding the Assessing Officer’s action adding its share application/premium of ₹1,26,00,000/- is as unexplained cash credits u/s. 68 followed by section 14A r.w. 8D Rule disallowance of ₹2,27,168/-, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

It emerges at the outset that the CIT(A)’s lower appellate order under challenge nowhere specifies points of his determination followed by detailed reasoning as envisaged u/s. 250(6) of the Act. There is further no observation in his lower appellate order as to whether assessee had been served notice of hearing or not.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →