SUKAMNA REALTORS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

- This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13 calls into question of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Kolkata’s order dated 03.10.2016, passed in case No.1410/CIT(A)-1/W-2(1)/2015-16 ex parte upholding Assessing Officer’s action making section u/s 68 addition of unexplained cash credit amounting to ₹12,11,25,000/- on account of share capital and share premium as well as preliminary expenditure written off disallowance of ₹7,669/-, involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

We notice at the outset that the Assessing Officer had framed regular assessment in question on 10.03.2015 making the above two addition(s) of share application / share premium and preliminary expenditure written off in assessment order dated 10.03.2015. He made the former addition on account Sukamna Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO Wd-2(1) Kol. Page 2 of non compliance on the part of the corresponding investors, their identity, genuineness and creditworthiness vis-à-vis the relevant share application and premium issued by the assessee which could not be verified in the course of scrutiny. The CIT(A) observes in his appellate proceedings that the assessee had not come present on i.e. 28.09.2016. He thus assumes that the assessee had no justifiable explanation to challenge correctness of the above two addition(s).

Learned counsel representing assessee has filed its authorized representative’s affidavit dated 22.05.2017 solemnly affording therein that he could not appear on said last date of hearing in the course of appellate assessment proceedings on 28.09.2016. It is therefore submitted that the assessee had always been ready and willing to render necessary assistance to lower authorities and it was only on account of its single failure that the CIT(A) has affirmed both the addition(s) on merits. Learned Departmental Representative strongly supports but CIT(A)’s findings upholding the impugned additions. The fact however remains that the assessee’s before us attributes its failure in putting in appearance before CIT(A) to the fact that its authorized representative had fallen ill. We therefore deem it appropriate in the larger interest of justice to remit the instant lis back to the CIT(A) for afresh adjudication after affording three effective opportunities of hearing. It is made clear that our instant remand directions would stand vacated in case the assessee’s fails to conclude its hearings within the said specified number of effective opportunities.

This assessee’s appeal is accepted for statistical purpose in the above terms. Order pronounced in the open court 20/07/2018 (लेखा सद%य) ("या'यक सद%य) (M.Balaganesh) (S.S.Godara) (Accountant Member) (Judicial Member) Kolkata, *Dkp, Sr.P.S (दनांकः- 20/07/2018 कोलकाता । Sukamna Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO Wd-2(1) Kol. Page 3