SUBARNASHILA MERCHANTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 731/KOL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 July 2018AY 2012-132 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the case to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, noting that the CIT(A)'s order did not discuss the issues or provide detailed reasoning. The assessee was granted three opportunities for hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against the CIT(A)'s ex parte order confirming additions to share capital/premium and disallowance under Section 14A was heard. The CIT(A) had confirmed these additions without discussing the merits of the case.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex parte order without discussing the merits of the additions and disallowances. Whether the assessee was prevented from appearing before the CIT(A) due to illness.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 14A,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 S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

O R D E R

PER S.S.Godara, Judicial Member:

1.

- This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13 arises against Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Kolkata’s order dated 04.10.2016 passed in case No.1409/cita1/W-2(3)/2015-16, confirming Assessing Officer’s action adding its share capital / premium of ₹ 18,66,40,000/- as well as u/s 14A r.w.s Rule 8D disallowance of ₹25,902/-, 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 order under challenge affirming assessment findings on both the above issues has been passed ex parte on the ground that the assessee could not appear on 28.09.2016. The Assessing Officer had framed the assessment in question on 27.03.2015 making section 68 additions and section 14A r.w. Rule 8D disallowance of unexplained share application / share Subarnashila Merchanats Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO Wd-2(3), Kol. Page 2 premium amounting to ₹18,66,40,000/- after holding that the assessee had not discharged its burden of proving the concerned investors’ identity much less genuineness and creditworthiness thereof. Needless to say, the CIT(A) has confirmed the same in his ex parte assessment order under challenge.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →